Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 03-30-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

No, I'm betting on a proper debate. I think this is one area (possibly the only area) where DfT knows his stuff. So there's a big difference right from the outset.

He has already posted his views on the bible up here in BC&H. His posts here made his E/C posts look brilliant. This should be another Black Knight (think Monty Python's Holy Grail) debate.

Julian

RBH · 03-30-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

He has already posted his views on the bible up here in BC&H. His posts here made his E/C posts look brilliant.

Julian

That does not bode well for the debate.

RBH

Julian · 03-30-2006, 07:16 PM

This thread originally started up here in BC&H, his first post is somewhere in the 80s. Read and see what he tries to hide in E/C. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=158845

Julian

Sven · 03-31-2006, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

No, I'm betting on a proper debate. I think this is one area (possibly the only area) where DfT knows his stuff. So there's a big difference right from the outset.

Umm, he said otherwise himself. From the thread in FDP [emphasis mine]:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DfT

I have no experience in formal debates whatsoever. Also, I am a layman when it comes to hermeneutics and Hebrew. I have no formal training in seminary or religious schooling beyond the first grade.
[and from a later post:]
Yes, a particular document in question may have been written in Hebrew, but the real question is whether the particular wording in such a document reflects more closely what the original autographs may have actually said...

There are ways to examine this. I have very little, if any, experience in doing so at the level of looking at documents[...]

Given this, I don't expect anything of quality from him.

And I have also seen what he posted here in BC&H - I entirely agree with Julian (post #11).

Ruiner · 04-02-2006, 07:20 PM

Regarding what you said Sven, he certainly used a lot of Hebrew to back up his claims.

What do you all think of his opening as it stands against the well-established scholarly studies? Do the linguists really agree with him on the Hebrew term waw? Or has he just picked one of a few scholars who, adhering to the gap theology, interperet waw as 'had become?'

Interesting opening to say the least.

Febble · 04-03-2006, 12:38 AM

There, you see, the boy did good. Did a lot of reading, checked some facts, summarised his findings, provided sources he'd actually read, and apt quotations from his sources, not just links, did some original research of his own, addressed specific points that Pervy made.

Now, if he just applies the same principles to scientific arguments....

Sven · 04-03-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

There, you see, the boy did good. Did a lot of reading, checked some facts, summarised his findings, provided sources he'd actually read, and apt quotations from his sources, not just links, did some original research of his own, addressed specific points that Pervy made.

Now, if he just applies the same principles to scientific arguments....

OK, I was wrong. :redface:

But this is a nice way to be proven wrong.

Febble · 04-03-2006, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

OK, I was wrong. :redface:

But this is a nice way to be proven wrong.

Yes, but isn't it weird, the way the less people know about something, the more sure they are that the answer is obvious?

Knowledge leads to nuance. Nuance is good.

Nialler · 04-03-2006, 04:17 AM

I'm straight away put off by the simple semantic debate between "was" and "had become".

The very lowest standard that I would expect from a document to which inerrancy is attached is a complete lack of ambiguity. If you or I were to right a bround-breaking scientific paper we would be careful to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. My Wife's thesis, for instance capitalised the words "The Cause" in reference to the Irish fight for independence. She was dropped to a 98% rating for that alone. It implied bias on her part and should have been enclosed in inverted commas.

My point is that that is a reasonable standard to hold for an academic treatise. It may appear to be a very minor semantic quibble, but each and every wrod must be tested for clarity and intent.

If it came, therefore, to a divine omnipotent being who is inspiring the writing of an account of the creation of lfe, I would expect a rather high degree of clarity. This raises questions straight away, and fires a fatal shot at any inerrancy argument:

"Which version and interpretation is the "inerrant" one?" Within a few words we have divergent interpretations of the bible, and we have to decide - we must decide - which is the inerrant version. They simply cannot all be inerrant.

DfT needs to establish which version claims inerrancy - and he needs to fully and properly justify the "was" - "had become" dichotomy.

Sven · 04-03-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Yes, but isn't it weird, the way the less people know about something, the more sure they are that the answer is obvious?

Knowledge leads to nuance. Nuance is good.

I'm sure you'll appreciate the following links

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=141619
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf (linked to in the former, but the link is broken)

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

03-30-2006, 07:16 PM	#13
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	This thread originally started up here in BC&H, his first post is somewhere in the 80s. Read and see what he tries to hide in E/C. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=158845 Julian

04-02-2006, 07:20 PM	#15
Ruiner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Bong Hits 4 Jesus. KY Posts: 643	Regarding what you said Sven, he certainly used a lot of Hebrew to back up his claims. What do you all think of his opening as it stands against the well-established scholarly studies? Do the linguists really agree with him on the Hebrew term waw? Or has he just picked one of a few scholars who, adhering to the gap theology, interperet waw as 'had become?' Interesting opening to say the least.

04-03-2006, 12:38 AM	#16
Febble Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Google "Febble" if you need to find me. Posts: 6,547	There, you see, the boy did good. Did a lot of reading, checked some facts, summarised his findings, provided sources he'd actually read, and apt quotations from his sources, not just links, did some original research of his own, addressed specific points that Pervy made. Now, if he just applies the same principles to scientific arguments....

04-03-2006, 04:17 AM	#19
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	I'm straight away put off by the simple semantic debate between "was" and "had become". The very lowest standard that I would expect from a document to which inerrancy is attached is a complete lack of ambiguity. If you or I were to right a bround-breaking scientific paper we would be careful to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. My Wife's thesis, for instance capitalised the words "The Cause" in reference to the Irish fight for independence. She was dropped to a 98% rating for that alone. It implied bias on her part and should have been enclosed in inverted commas. My point is that that is a reasonable standard to hold for an academic treatise. It may appear to be a very minor semantic quibble, but each and every wrod must be tested for clarity and intent. If it came, therefore, to a divine omnipotent being who is inspiring the writing of an account of the creation of lfe, I would expect a rather high degree of clarity. This raises questions straight away, and fires a fatal shot at any inerrancy argument: "Which version and interpretation is the "inerrant" one?" Within a few words we have divergent interpretations of the bible, and we have to decide - we must decide - which is the inerrant version. They simply cannot all be inerrant. DfT needs to establish which version claims inerrancy - and he needs to fully and properly justify the "was" - "had become" dichotomy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.