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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-12-2001, 05:23 PM   #81
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by faded_Glory:
I find it interesting to see how people construct their arguments in this kind of debate. Right now, there is a risk that it becomes a match between who can wheel out the most, and the best accredited, scholars who happen to agree with any particular point one wants to make. Brian/Nomad’s insistence on literal quotes, complete with page numbers and all, shows this nicely.

I want to contrast this with the scientific literature in, say, natural sciences. In my field, Earth Science, authors do of course build on previous work using references. However, these are seldom, if ever, in the form of quotations, nor does it matter very much what the credentials of the quoted authors are, as long as the references come from the peer-reviewed literature. Titles are not used.

The point of references in such papers is to provide background, supporting data and previous work relating to one’s own research – it is emphatically not to try and show how many others agree with your particular point. References are required because no-one can present and analyse the vast amount of data relating to any particular issue on his own- their purpose is not to shore up your credibility by presenting someone else who agrees with you.
</font>
Donnerkeil replies:
One problem Faded Glory... this practice and style of citation in science is kept to a minimum for a number of reasons. First is space constraints... peer reviewed correspondence is usually limited to a few pages (anywhere from 3 to 4 pages up to 10 to 12 depending on the journal). Extensive quoting would detract from the overall ability of the correspondence to exhibit new data.

Second is that the authors of such letters base their writing on the assumption that those who will read and examine their data are either already fluent with the previous findings and/or they have access to the journals where the data has been deposited.

Third, the scientific community is much different from the internet. We may or may not have access to the data that other people are talking about, and quite frankly... some of the Jesus Myther data is so obscure that some things can't even be found through interlibrary loan! So, asking for quotes and citations to prove context and authenticity is quite the norm and is the hallmark of a studious and honest person.

If people are confident about their position, they should have no problem providing citations... matter of fact, they should already have them handy.

 
Old 05-12-2001, 05:30 PM   #82
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rbochnermd:
The Chinese at the time were meticulous in their recordings of "current" events at the time Jesus was purportedly tortued to death on a wooden T-bar, yet no mention of a "darkened sky," as described in the Bible, is found in their records. How could they have possibly failed to observe and record such an unusual event?

Rick
</font>
Donnerkeil replies:
Why didn't they recognize the darkness? Because an eclipse seen in Israel would not have been seen in China. That's why.
 
Old 05-12-2001, 07:35 PM   #83
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by donnerkeil:
If people are confident about their position, they should have no problem providing citations... matter of fact, they should already have them handy.</font>
I'm looking forward to an examination of the evidence. That's E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E!

It is not incumbent upon either Earl or Brian to do anything but examine the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and argue conclusions directly relating to the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E! Any argument from authority should be strictly avoided.

I wish they would limit their exchanges to specifically interpreting E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, and not commentary on the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E!
 
Old 05-13-2001, 04:55 PM   #84
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I find it disappointing that Brian/Nomad has avoided analyzing Earl Doherty's arguments in detail, preferring to make strong, sweeping claims about ED's methodology. Instead of quarreling over such issues as ED's competence in NT Greek, he ought to be arguing over whether ED's translations make sense.
 
Old 05-13-2001, 06:37 PM   #85
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ipetrich, ED's proficiency in Koine Greek (among other things that Brian brought up) is important if he is going to use his own translations and interpretations as the basis of his theory.

Personally, I was disappointed that ED decided to play the martyr in his most recent post and complain about how hard it is to post here. I was particularly amused by his "dating" analogy.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 13, 2001).]
 
Old 05-14-2001, 11:05 AM   #86
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Rather than wait for Brian, I decided to get the show on the road with my own posting devoted to argument from the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

Earl Doherty
 
Old 05-14-2001, 11:18 AM   #87
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by donnerkeil:
Donnerkeil replies:
Why didn't they recognize the darkness? Because an eclipse seen in Israel would not have been seen in China. That's why.
</font>
Since when are we seeing a different moon ? Whenever Israel sees an eclipse we here at Asia saw it too !

 
Old 05-14-2001, 11:27 AM   #88
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Thanks, Earl. The meta-discussion was getting to me.

I have read your book, and I think it is intriguing. I think you make a good case that Paul did not depend on any historical Jesus, and acted as if Jesus could have been a spiritual being. (We all know that Paul never met Jesus, if the rest of the Bible is to be believed at all.) But it is still possible that there was a real person behind the spirit, although it may be impossible to know anything about him?

I think the best argument for the existence of Jesus is the existence of Christians before Paul, although I think this is a weak argument, since we know so little about them.

On procedural matters, I myself don't like the message board format for this debate. The message board works best for short questions and answers. It has occurred to me that the format used in the secularist-versus-secularist debates would be more productive. It has also occured to me that this debate might be more productive if you debated a secularist who believes that there was a historical Jesus. Just a thought to keep in mind.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-14-2001, 12:48 PM   #89
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by KCTAN:
Since when are we seeing a different moon ? Whenever Israel sees an eclipse we here at Asia saw it too !

</font>
Is this a solar or lunar eclipse? If it is a solar eclipse, it will indeed only be seen on a specific portion of the earth (the sun being much bigger than both the earth and the moon, and the moon being much smaller than the earth). If it is a lunar eclipse, and since the earth is larger than the moon, it is only dependant on being on the right side of the earth, and Isreal and Asia can certainly qualify.

 
Old 05-14-2001, 01:10 PM   #90
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I've actually attempted to answer this eclipse question in a thread that I've started in this forum. And I conclude that there was no solar eclipse that had been visible in Jerusalem in March or April in the years from 25 to 40. And if there had been an afternoon one, then it would not have been visible in China (too late in the day).

Lunar eclipses cannot cause daytime darkness because they are only visible at night.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Top

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