Doctor X

Spenser:

But I thought its walls came down . . . not another contradiction?

Heaven's to Betsy. . . .

Now:

Who consist of whom? Apologists such as the individual?

Do I then conduct my own "poll." Ah . . . yes . . . a veritable argumentum ad captandum vulgus.

However I have a much more scholarly solution:

Let him write up and submit his theories to the peer-reviewed literature--let us then see what the "biblical studies community" says about it.

I mean . . . if they agree with him as he believe . . . it should prove no problem.

Too easy:

I'll Answer your Bible Questions

One should note well the plea of excreationist

"And answer came there none."

I think "anyone" knows quite well why the individual fled from the fray . . . perhaps his poll of the "biblical community" will provide him with help? Most likely it will force him to accept that which, apparently, proves "too dark altogether."

--J.D.

Mullibok

Why do you keep mocking people for their usernames? It's not like yours is all that serious.

Doctor X

Do not take away his only tactic and leave him naked.

--J.D.

Cross Examiner

J.D.,

You just won't let it go, eh? OK. Time for a rehash. In response to your initial post here, in which the moderator had to remind you not to 'poison the well,' where you (completely off-topic) claim that I once 'fled' in the face 'demonstrated biblical errors,' I respond tongue-in-cheek here by calling into question your particular 'fringe group''s ability to exegete. You protested here that your affiliation with the Society of Biblical Literature, who you maintain is not a 'fringe group,' with inference made, exegete well and that you, by extension as a member of some sort, do also. Then when I asked you if the Society of Biblical Literature agree with your views here, you informed us here that they do not. So, claiming the backing of a group that you are in fact in material disagreement with in an attempt to give your own 'fringe' interpretations credence is disingenuous at best. Let the record show ... And so, when you write this:

As if I am the one who (illegitimately) believes that I have the backing and support of the Society of Biblical Literature is, yet again, disingenuous on your part. Furthermore, your claim that because I did not reply to any number of myriad clamoring requests for response in this busy thread somehow equates with my 'fleeing' in the face of 'demonstrated biblical errors' is utter foolishness on your part. If I, as a theist on a non-theist board, were to leave a thread because of lack of interest, relevance or, say, because of the birth of my first born son (that’s right…I can fax you a copy of the birth certificate and you can line it up with the date of my 'fleeing,' J.D.), such ‘silence’ doesn't give you sufficient warrant to imply that I have no answer to whatever miscellaneous challenge that was left over after my departure. You really need to get better info before mouthing off like this next time:

Mullibok, you write:

How do you conclude that I am mocking 'people for their usernames?' If you'll observe, the point that I make in that post that you reference is that I cannot, as suggested by J.D., simply learn by 'read[ing] scholarship' that the Society of Biblical Literature disagrees with Doctor X. Think about it. Who is 'Doctor X' anyway? How or where would I locate something written by 'Doctor X' with which to compare the works of the foundational members of the Society of Biblical Literature -- in order to find out if ‘Doctor X’ is a mainstream member or not? I would have as much luck finding out if Kermit the Frog's views line up with the National Academy of Sciences' veiws by, as J.D. suggests, 'reading scholarship' as I would with finding out if 'Doctor X''s views line up with the Society of Biblical Literature. So, you see, I was not mocking his name. I was challenging the usefulness of his advice. As it turns out, I was right to simply ask him my questions directly since doing a search on the divergence of ‘Doctor X’ from the Society of Biblical Literature would be a colossal waste of my time along the lines of researching Joan of Arc's opinion on cell phones. I trust you gather.

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

Thus writes the individual who then composes a ream of complaint about how unfair we are to call him to task for his failure to support himself, answer questions, or generally behave responsibly in a debate.

An unkind man would find that the behavior of a Hypocrite.

This was a "late-edit" from a moderator who has not bothered to involve himself in the discussion.

On the contrary, he did not know the definition of "poisoning the well"--it is not a fallacy if it is true.

It was and remains a valid observation. The individual--and the moderator, if he had bothered to do his homework--need only blame himself for it.

A slanted rehash of the above follows. I may simply refer the Readership to the actual posts.

On the contrary, the individual attempted to . . . how ironic . . . Poison the Well by painting scholars as a "fringe group." It remains his error if he posted without bothering to know what he posts about.

Protests with great vigor regarding his "injur'd merit" on why he could not respond.

Nevertheless, he persists in making the same eroneous claims he made in the thread. If sincere in his complaint he merely would have ceased this error.

A hack drummer.

If the individual considers that his search may educate him on matters that he attempts to pontificate upon, that, remains, most unfortunate.

--J.D.

Mullibok

You seem to use J.D. everywhere but this one spot, which suggested to me the less serious name was used to imply a lack of any credibility on his part. Same goes for putting "rainbow walking" next to a person's real name.

Cross Examiner

Yes, of course. The moderator, myself, the Society of Biblical Literature etc., with whom you diverge, are all wrong and Doctor X/J.D./'hack drummer' (or whatever he feels like calling himself) is right. Uh huh. And it would be most appreciated if one self-proclaimed 'doctor' would kindly cease communicating as if he were, himself, Her majesty, the Queen of England. Tut tut cheerio and all that

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

Mullibok:

Certainly a flame-out is never pretty; however, he should never have dosed himself with the gasoline.

Nevertheless, noblese oblige requires me to correct the not very subtle attempt to change the record:

Notice how NOW he allies himself with the "fringe group."

Unfortunately, as noted above, the "fringe group" does not agree with him.

It would prove easier--and more honest--for him to simply admit that he, himself, comitted the Poisoning of the Well when he tried to dismiss the evidence against his position in this manner.

Now this is unfortunate:

We do not communicate in this way. . . .

--J.D.

Mullibok

One would hope not. This thread would seem to have degenerated to the point where we do, though.

Doctor X

We have been known to express a "hey nonney-no!" when told our children are divorcing or joining the theater, but "tut tut" is beneath our vocabulary. . . .

Looks around the room. Spies it attempting to hide behind the Ottoman. Stabs at it with his steely knife--just cannot kill the beast. Chases it into a corner. . . .

Yes, the Topic. Before I pin it to the floor . . . or it bites me "where the feathers are thinnest" allow me to [Pontificate.--Ed.] a bit on the subject of debate on these topics.

One has a right to whatever one's religion is . . . unless it involves immolating children . . . unless they refuse to eat their vegetables [Get on with it!--Ed.]

The Problem comes from tying belief to something objective. This is a common and understandable desire--we want what we believe to be true. Unfortunately, often what is true is contradicted by something objective--like a text.

Contradiction breeds doubt and doubt can prove too much, apparently.

So, to return, rather obliquely to The Topic [Tm.--Ed.], allow me to [Prat on.--Ed.] comment on a "fringe group."

No I am not trying to "rub it in." Calling biblical scholarship a "fringe group" is akin to calling Democrates "traitors" or country western fans "tasteless idiots" . . . except that it is true.

However, biblical scholarship is a diverse group, of course. Scholars who publish in the peer-reviewed literature do not tend to argue for a "world-wide flood."

They do, indeed, tend to see the various flood myths in the OT as just that . . . myths.

Nevertheless, many of these are, indeed, religious--be it Jewish or "Christian" however you wish to define it.

Why?

[Cue Sounds of Crickets Chirping in the Cold, Still Night.--Ed.]

Because they do not have to support faith by myth. They do not need errancy.

Now, whether that is a valid religious position or apology or whatever is another topic. The point is [ZZZZzzzZZZZZzzZZZZ--Ed.] that scholars recognize that the flood myth was a myth. Period.

If someone wishes to find a peer-reviewed article that receives acceptance from scholars that supports a biblical flood as actually happening, I would be happy to see it. That was, in a verbose manner, my "point." Indeed, frankly many of scholarship's member accept the contradictions.

This has probably done the topic to death since I am unaware of anyone else on this thread trying to resuscitate the flood myths as historical. Nevertheless, I would remind that acceptance of them as myth does not mean one has to throw out his spiritual beliefs.

Nor does, to use the oversubordinated sentence fragment for poor effect, acceptance of evolution.

It scurries up his pant leg causing him to jump around screaming much like the young orphans who keep the gutters clean.

--J.D.