WILLOWTREE

This is my exact argument concerning the content of the criticism about Dr. Scott.

I make claims with sources and the speeding bullet invoking "mainstream" claims otherwise is offered.

Anyone can claim their subjective view to be mainstream.

99% of the time the majority is always wrong in the Bible.

Acts 15 records the issue at the First Church Council presided over by James the epistle writer.

Paul loses.

The point is that the genuine seat of God-ordained truth resides OUTSIDE the established church at Jerusalem. (outside being Paul and his message accounting for two thirds of the N.T.)

The larger point again is that the majority/mainstream are WRONG, that the truth resides outside the establishment. IF this is true in the church world (fundementalists prove it true) then HOW MUCH MORE IN SECULAR ESTABLISHMENTS !

If some Catholic sources claim post 70 AD dates for N.T. sources then they too are wrong.

All the N.T. sources have been proven pre-70 AD with the exception of Revelation. This is a fact that "mainstream" cannot tolerate because of its implications and subsequent loss of credibility to things they have already spoken up for.

funinspace

Unfortunately, we seem to be always limited by you asserting what Scotty says, without any supporting evidence. Several counter arguments are usually made with detail and source reference. Then you blow it off without providing any additional detailed information, since it's "mainstream" you simple state it is irrelevant.


Of course anyone can claim anything just like you are doing. It's another thing to actually substantiate it with actual information. Again, you make a bald assertion with no supporting information...

It's hardly just the "Catholics". The vast majority of Xian believing scholars do not agree with you, whether they are evangelical, RCC, or Protestant as shown by cited sources.

Again, since you only assert, and don't provide evidence for your claims, there's no proof of anything. Mainstream has nothing to do with it. How many of today's scholars were around when the first modern datings were established. Why do you need some hidden or mysterious conspiracy? What implications? What loss of credibility?

Again, as I asked earlier, why should someone believe your rather unusual views when they contradict the vast majority of well educated analysis and opinion? You say you have provided sources, but why should anyone bother to go listen to your not so easy access sources?

WILLOWTREE

I agree.

Text originators slant their work to reflect their school of thought. The Geneva Bible clearly has a Calvinian predestinarian bias.

Now that we agree such bias exists, how are the MT scholars exempt from human nature especially in lieu of the following evidence ?

source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University, The Dr. Gene Scott Bible Museum, placard in glass case substantiating the corruption of the LXX by MT scholars, citing "Untitled Manuscript".

Amaleq13

This makes no sense. It isn't "mainstream" but majority and that majority includes Christians who believe in miracles including the resurrection. It even includes Christian scholars who assert that the Gospels are reliable sources of historical information. Many, if not all, of the Christian scholars who accept that the Gospels cannot be reliably dated prior to 70 ce would clearly prefer that they could be dated closer to the events described because that would support their belief the reliability of those texts. It makes no sense for them to join in this imaginary conspiracy you have fabricated because it is contrary to their beliefs. Unsubstantiated assertions of conspiracies are a common appeal made by minority scholars lacking any credible support for their claims.

Do you have any facts to back up the assertion of "proven" pre70 dating or is it entirely based on your faith?


Also, I again ask that you check your Private Messages.

Intelligitimate

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...dr-gene-scott/

NOGO

When did Jesus become the Son of God?

Well, it depends on where you look.

Luke claims that Jesus would be known as Son of God because he was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit.

John on the other hand says that Jesus was the first begotten of the Father. The Word was with God from the start and therefore Jesus was Son of God from the very start. This is a confirmed belief of early Christians if you read Tatian and other early writers.

We also have Jesus baptism where the Father says "this is my beloved Son" and several demonic spirits who claim to know that Jesus is the Son of the most high.

Yet, Paul in Romans 1 and the authors of Hebrews in chapter 1, the idea is expressed that Jesus became Son of God on his re-entry into heaven after the resurrection.

Early Christians felt free to create stories about Jesus.

NOGO

WILLOW,

Here is evidence that Mark was written in year 70.

This is Jesus speaking so the destruction of the temple is described as a future event which is normal since the intention was a prophecy.

So the author starts with a future perspective - "For those days will be ..."
So we are in year ~30 and speaking about future events which we now know took place in year 70.

The author describes these events as "tribulation such as has not occurred since the begining of creation". In other words they are quite serious.

The author then makes an error which betrays his perspective. Instead of keeping the subject in the future as it should have been he places it in the present.

So these tribulations have not occurred "unti now". ?!?! (present)

Instead of "until then" (future, as it should have been)

"Now" is the time of the author writing this passage. "Then" is the time of the tribulations. The author confused the two, betraying his belief that the tribulations were already upon him. The war agaisnt Rome had already started and perhaps the temple had already been destroyed which would certainly make these tribulations quite serious.

Mark betrayed his perspective. If had written this in, say the year 50 he would have written it as follows.

"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until then, and never will thereafter.

CX

I cited my source, Liddell & Scott, the preeminent lexicon in the world for various forms of ancient Greek including Koine. I consulted my own abridged copy and later consulted the unabridged version. You asserted that an acceptable definition is "Knowledge that can only be gained through personal experience." Clearly that definition is unsupported. You've done nothing to rebut that. GNWSIS in Koine is equivalent to the word "Knowledge" in English and in and of itself has no special connotation except the gnostic interpretation which is diametrically opposed to the definition you provided above.

CX

First of all to claim anyone is THE greatest scholar is sheer puffery. There are numerous outstanding scholars of Greek of roughly equal stature and perhaps a handful of luminaries, but it is hubris for anyone to say that a single individual is the greatest scholar in any subject. Secondly, criticism of Dr. Scott's academic stature is entirely justified based on the lack of any peer reviewed work or peer recognition. Even so this is a pointless argument.

I agree and I do not base my opinion of Dr. Scott on that fact. Rather I was pointing out that I found it personally amusing. I would consider it equally amusing if someone like Aland or Metzger did the same thing.

Perhaps, but on balance Dr. Scott's CV looks like that of an evangelist not an academician.

WILLOWTREE

What is "CV" ?

For an atheist to equate 'evangelist' to not have anything to do with 'academician' is obviously contrived or you wouldn't have to of said it.

To endorse 'evangelist' means we are wrong - glad you didn't.

Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. from Stanford and not from any department. It is the last diploma handed out at graduation.

His degree is a research degree, cross department in Philosophy and Religion.

His doctoral dissertation: Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr.

He is the eminent scholar, having mastered every ancient language that the Bible was written in.

He can tell you what ANY verse says in ANY ancient language by memory including the syntax, grammar, cases, etc. etc. THIS IS A FACT GO TO HIS WEBSITE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

Some people are brilliant some are genius only one is beyond - Dr. Scott.

These credentials and abilities infuriate a jealous world.

He and Dr. Spiegelberg are co-creators of taxonomy to analyze institutions.

Prof. Larry Thomas, atheist, leading voice of experimentalism on the West Coast said Dr. Scott was his brightest student, and because of Dr. Scott's objectivity, this attracted Dr. Thomas to forsake atheism based on the evidence of the Resurrection researched by Dr. Scott, and he became a Catholic near the end of his life.

The sum total of the attacks on Dr. Scott amount to the straw man of mainstream, which according to the objective mind of God is always wrong.