[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
I've always enjoyed the cliche "childish notions" comeback, but it seems a little tired and old-fashioned to me now, especially when it is obvious that we are both pretty educated.

Education has nothing to do with childish beliefs.

Ish: Why do I want to share this with people I meet? Because it is wonderful news that I personally believe can benefit everyone. Aside from all my joking, I care... (otherwise, why bother?)

Not everyone thinks your beliefs are "wonderful" or that they "benefit everyone." Why not keep them to yourself and debate biblical issues? This is not a church, Ish. I say that because I care.

rodahi

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Ish: I've always enjoyed the cliche "childish notions" comeback, but it seems a little tired and old-fashioned to me now, especially when it is obvious that we are both pretty educated. Education does not necessarily rid people of their childish beliefs. Ish: Why do I want to share this with people I meet? Because it is wonderful news that I personally believe can benefit everyone. Aside from all my joking, I care... (otherwise, why bother?) Not everyone thinks your beliefs are "wonderful" or that they "benefit everyone." Why not keep them to yourself and debate biblical issues? This is not a church, Ish. I say that because I care. Also, we have gotten off topic. Let's get back to dating P46. rodahi

Ok then, back to the topic at hand.

Can anyone provide more detailed information on why many scholars seem to reject Kim's dating?

Specifically, I am interested in the MSS that Kim presented for comparison with the text style in P46. Is there any specific information as to why his comparisons are no good? Surely Kim's comparisons aren't rejected solely because other scholars simply say they're no good...

Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Ok then, back to the topic at hand.

Can anyone provide more detailed information on why many scholars seem to reject Kim's dating?

I really don't think it is hyperbole to say that ALL scholars reject Kim's dating. (I don't consider Carsten Peter Thiede to be a scholar.) Paleographers reject Kim's dating for multiple reasons, and I am still trying to put together a concise and yet complete rebuttal of Kim's conclusions. It may take me a few more days to get all the information I need.

Ish: Specifically, I am interested in the MSS that Kim presented for comparison with the text style in P46.

I will tell you that IS one area of concern among palaeographers. Apparently, his choice of MSS was highly selective and at least a few were somewhat inappropriate.

Ish: Is there any specific information as to why his comparisons are no good? Surely Kim's comparisons aren't rejected solely because other scholars simply say they're no good...

Kim's methodology (some question his motivation) is suspect, and, as a result, so are his conclusions. I will be more specific in a later post.

Ish, I appreciate your questions and thank you for getting us back on track.

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 06, 2001).]

Ulrich

I never said that I did find Nomad's argument persuasive, I just noted that he actually has presented an argument, whereas you have not. I can't presume to know whether Nomad has read the original article by Kim or not, unless he has admitted as much in this forum, but the question is irrelevent. The question should be: "Did Nomad properly represent Kim's position in the article?" If not, you can call him to task on that, but that is not what you are doing, so I can only imagine that he is properly representing Kim's position. In which case you should move on the rebutting that position.



I won't use any criteria to determine whether or not it is convincing, because I am quite frankly not that interested. As soon as you present your evidence I will likely disappear from this thread.

Then later:

I am fully capable of understanding the implications involved in the issue, without attaching any interest to the issue itself. As you can see, and have noted yourself, I do have at least a modicum of understanding with relation to the "real issue".

My issue with this thread, reagardless of the "real issue" of P46, is that I noticed you engaging in debate tactics that I find to be counterproductive in a forum such as this. I have called out theists for using similar tactics in the past, and I would think less of myself if I did not hold my fellow atheists to the same standard.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
quote:I will say it again: Nomad has presented nothing directly from Kim's article. He has read a few paragraphs from a Christian evangelical's analysis of P46 and repeated a portion of what that person (Daniel Wallace) wrote. Do you really think Nomad has made an "argument?" Also, Why do you find Nomad's "argument" persuasive? Is it because you don't know what P46 is, and you will accept the word of anyone who puts forth what appears to be an argument?

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

I never said that I did find Nomad's argument persuasive, I just noted that he actually has presented an argument, whereas you have not. I can't presume to know whether Nomad has read the original article by Kim or not, unless he has admitted as much in this forum, but the question is irrelevent. The question should be: "Did Nomad properly represent Kim's position in the article?" If not, you can call him to task on that, but that is not what you are doing, so I can only imagine that he is properly representing Kim's position. In which case you should move on the rebutting that position.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presuming that I present "evidence" which refutes Kim's dating of P46, what criteria will you use to determine whether or not it is convincing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I won't use any criteria to determine whether or not it is convincing, because I am quite frankly not that interested. As soon as you present your evidence I will likely disappear from this thread.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulrich: Secondly, in the grand tradition of 10,000+ years of human history, I think 120 years can be viewed as "a bit".
This perfectly illustrates that you have no idea what the real issue is.


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

Then later:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulrich: They are constantly trying to push back the dates of various scriptures in order to get them closer to the time in which Jesus supposedly lived, as if that somehow gives them more creedence.
That is correct, and that IS the problem...

...apologists will use any misinformation (Kim's dating of P46) available to further their cause.

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

I am fully capable of understanding the implications involved in the issue, without attaching any interest to the issue itself. As you can see, and have noted yourself, I do have at least a modicum of understanding with relation to the "real issue".

My issue with this thread, reagardless of the "real issue" of P46, is that I noticed you engaging in debate tactics that I find to be counterproductive in a forum such as this. I have called out theists for using similar tactics in the past, and I would think less of myself if I did not hold my fellow atheists to the same standard.

Precisely what tactic have I used that is "similar" to what theists have used?

FACT: ALL expert palaeographers reject Kim's dating of P46. See thread "What is P46?"

FACT: Nomad has presented what you think is an argument that should be refuted, and yet, you don't know what the argument is and don't seem to care.

FACT: No one knows who Kim is. See thread "Who is Young Kyu Kim?"

FACT: Dr. L. W. Hurtado has called into question Kim's methodology. See thread "What is P46?"

FACT: I pointed out problems with Kim's conclusions. See thread "What is P46?"

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 07, 2001).]

Wow. I think Canticle for Leibowitz (with apoligies to its fans) was the last time I read so much for so little return. For what it's worth, yes Nomad, of course appeal to authority is a valid argument in a technical field. And no Rodahi, you haven't mustered anything else in support of your case. Next time you two set to, I'll know to pass.

Bede

rodahi,

I must ask, do your views on arguments from authority being valid apply to the Jesus myth argument too? If so, will you be attacking Earl D with as much gusto as you have Nomad?

Yours

Bede

Conversely, it's interesting how much Nomad appeals to authority in his opening reply.

Is YOUR commentary SUPPOSED to add anything to this discussion of P46? Wow! I don't see it.

rodahi