Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-01-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Who are these "most scholars" who agree it's an anachronism indicating a later insertion? What did they say?

I have no idea, as I made clear already.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Who are these "most scholars" who agree it's an anachronism indicating a later insertion? What did they say?

I have no idea, as I made clear already.

Then it isn't me who can't provide an argument. Dismiss yourself.

:wave:

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

First you whine about the inability to get all your answers from google, then you whine about your unwillingness to remedy the situation by putting any effort into the discussion at all (by say checking out the reference from a library).

Sure, I'll just go run down to the library at 12.35 AM.

Don't worry, we're all over it.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Yep, great research. This is all too common with you.

Have you considered clicking the link to "The Bible Geek" on the left side of your screen at the web site you listed?

That's the BibleGeek forum, not the Robert Price forum. The BibleGeek is a little known webcast. I'd be surprised to find more than a trickle of posts there. Why would you expect more?

Didn't you bother to read who the "Bible Geek" is identified as?

That's Price's own forum. It's linked to from his other website.

spamandham · 07-01-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I have no idea, as I made clear already.

Then it isn't me who can't provide an argument. Dismiss yourself.

:wave:

Ok, I'm dismissed then. Boy, my inability to specify who Price meant by 'most', when he didn't specify it, sure does show me to be the one with nothing of any merit here!

Wow. I'm so dissapointed.

Now that that's out of the way, is there anyone interested in Biblical history who would like to tackle this post?

spamandham · 07-01-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Sure, I'll just go run down to the library at 12.35 AM.

Don't worry, we're all over it.

There was no requirement to respond this evening.

FathomFFI · 07-01-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Then it isn't me who can't provide an argument. Dismiss yourself.

:wave:

Ok, I'm dismissed then. Boy, my inability to specify who Price meant by 'most', when he didn't specify it, sure does show me to be the one with nothing of any merit here!

Wow. I'm so dissapointed.

Now that that's out of the way, is there anyone interested in Biblical history who would like to tackle this post?

You have already stated that you cannot answer any questions, so how is anyone supposed to argue with you?

Why are you wasting people's time by posting arguments you can't even support due to a lack of knowledge of it all? Since you can't answer the questions, we've gone to Price himself.

http://webulite.com/node/1796

If he doesn't answer in 48 hours, we'll email him. Satisfied now?

Doug Shaver · 07-02-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

[Argument from silence] might never be a good deductive argument. It can be a very cogent inductive argument. And when we're discussing history, induction is all we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

but you've got to provide more than just a singular fact to give it any legs at all.

Sorry. I don't know what you mean by "just a singular fact."

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

If we didn't have a criteria for validating an argument from silence we could just say any silly old thing and expect it to be believed.

I have some criteria. I think they're pretty good, and I think Doherty meets them.

Doug Shaver · 07-02-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

The letters' mere existence stands as evidence on their own.

Evidence of what?

Doug Shaver · 07-02-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

But again, how does one prove a negative?

One way is by showing that denial of the negative implies a contradiction.

Or, since we're talking inductive reasoning here instead of deductive, by showing that denial of the negative implies a proposition that is, for some reason previously accepted, not credible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.