yummyfur

1) Dr. Eugene Scott has a phd in Philosophy of Education from Stanford in 1957, so who really cares about his education, it had nothing to do with Archeaology, History, Textual analysis, or anything really associated with Biblical scholarship, except in the most general way, as philosophy, but not even in a field of Philosophy that one could grant some interest. like Philosophy of Ancient Greece.

2) Who cares if he was an agnostic at Stanford(if that is even true), he wasn't a Biblical scholar at Stanford.

The reason I question his agnosticism at Stanford, is that by the early sixties, at least, he was a minister in the Assemblies of God, he also taught at a Baptist College and also at Oral Roberts Univerisity right after graduating. Considering his Parents were conservative and believing Christians, I find it most likely that he was never an agnostic. Also his thesis paper was on a conservative Christian theologian/philosopher hardly the choice for an agnostic .

Mageth

And "proponents" simply assert the "Book of Jasher" (I believe there are at least two different versions floating around) as being the same book as mentioned in the Bible.

So what?

And the Book of Jasher was not among those Apocryphal books...and is not among the Apcrypha found in the Catholic Bible or any other Bible I know of...so your point about the original KJV and Apocrypha in relation to the Book of Jasher seems to be moot:

http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

The Book of Jasher ain't in there.

And the "Book of Jasher" is not, and never has been, a "Bible book".

And if Scott believed the book to be "authentic", then that says something about the quality of his "eminent authority" in and of itself, as the evidence clearly points to it being late (13th Century CE or so) midrash and/or outright forgery.

All you've posted so far is a myth from that book. You haven't proved anything; actually, I've seen no valid evidence from you either.

WILLOWTREE

We have an atheist or scientific fundy calling me a liar.

What else is new ?

FYI:

Dr. Scott's Ph.D. is cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion.

Your chronology about Dr. Scott is a mess = drunken rhetoric.

Asserting contrary to who Dr. Scott is only establishes your extreme ignorance and/or hate.

You should back up your opinions with evidence, if not = predictible secular hate.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Atheist assertions ranting against the brightest scholar of all time.

You demand what your post does not give itself.

IOW, any source which supports theism is asserted by you to be wrong.

This is philosophy disguised as evidence.

Please back-up all your assertions.

You have evaded and insulted.

Like I say, is an atheist eligible to recognize any evidence which dents his worldview ?

Answer: Opponent proves the answer is no.

Opponent "refutes" evidence by writing "where is the evidence" = rage about evidence.

WT

yummyfur

I didn't call you a liar, I said I doubted his agnosticism at Stanford. If he himself did not make this claim, than maybe that was a lie on your part, but if he did make that claim, I have reason to be suspicious of his claim.

Second his degree is stated in his bio on the site you linked to, and it is NOT cross departmental.

"Dr. Gene Scott earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at California's prestigious Stanford University in 1957; in 1992, he was the featured cover story for the Stanford Alumni Magazine. For over 40 years he has served as an ordained minister, including 15 years in the mission field and in executive capacities with major Protestant denominations and educational institutions, 15 years of which he was a Director, Vice President and President of the denomination before refusing re-election to concentrate on the Los Angeles pastorate. "

http://www.drgenescott.com/docsbio.htm

The rest of the stuff in my post is also correct. He was an Assemblies of God Minister in the Sixties, and his First teaching job right out of Stanford was at a Baptist Bible College. From everything I've read about him, his religious beliefs became more profound at Stanford, not the other way around.

WILLOWTREE

Does anyone not believe their own research ?

As do Darwinian "scientists" and their supporters.

The only people who don't are atheists and Darwinists - no surprise.

You must be a teenager ?

I said things like that when I was a teenager - no problem.

Proof you didn't read the post.

Generation Xer you are ?

Admission that evidence is only that which supports the Darwinian worldview.

IOW, unless its supports atheism or ToE it aint evidence = the Darwinian response to any evidence which disproves their anti-Bible worldview.

WT

Mageth

The man may have been smart as a whip; I don't know. I used to watch his show on TV every once in a while just for entertainment. He didn't seem to be dumb, though it was hard to determine from the show how smart he was. I'll say one thing, though, he appeared to be eccentric as hell. For a long time there, he appeared in a bright, shiny "Kaiser's helmet", and always smoking a big cigar. He'd sit in front of the camera and ramble on about, well, next-to-nothing for a long time. Spent a lot of time showing videos of his horses, and talking about them, IIRC.

However, that (his eccentricity) has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of what he's claimed. Likewise, how bright he was as a scholar has nothing to do with it either. Get it?

Umm, you appeared to be asserting that the Book of Jasher appeared in the Apocrypha in the original KJV, and thus gained authenticity. I posted evidence that shows that it did not. That's a bit more than an assertion on my part.

In the meantime, you make an assertion that "[Dr. Gene Scott] has said the Book of Jasher is authentic." No doubt he did, but when you provide that here, you are making an assertion that, because he said it was authentic, that it is authentic. That is an assertion, an appeal to authority and nothing else, and does not serve as evidence of its authenticity.

You also posit that the words "the Book of Jasher" appear twice in the Canonical Bible, and that the Book of Jasher you are referring to is that book. That is an assertion as well. It is not evidence that the Book of Jasher you refer to, the one with the magic cloak claim, is the book referred to in the Canonical Bible.

Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, the evidence we do have indicates that the "Book of Jasher" is late midrash, or possibly even forgery.

I've backed mine up, refer you to other information that has been posted by others that backs up the "assertion" that Jasher is midrash or forgery.

You have not backed up a single one of your assertions - except with more assertions.

Where have I evaded anything, and what insults have you perceived?

Sure I would be "eligible" to. But the process goes: receive evidence, evaluate evidence, judge evidence based on evaluation. Not merely "accept it because WILLOWTREE asserts it", or "accept it because the brightest scholar Dr. Gene Scott said it was true." I've looked at what "evidence" you've posted so far, and it simply doesn't hold up to such scrutiny.

Seriously, you're confusing the above process, by which I and others have received, evaluated, judged, and critiqued what you've been presenting, with just outright rejection based on some "worldview" that I or others here are trying to protect. That's nonsense, pure and simple.

The fact is, what you've presented simply doesn't hold up under analysis. E.g., the apparent claim that the "original KJV apocrypha included the Book of Jasher, but was arbitrarily thrown out" claim.

Read what I said at the end of that post and in this post:

"I've seen no valid evidence from you".

The process I use to validate evidence has been used on what evidence you've presented, and the evidence you've presented doesn't hold up. Most of it is simply assertion, in any case (e.g., "the Canonical books mention the Book of Jasher twice, and the Book of Jasher I'm talking about is that one", or "Dr. Scott says it's authentic.")

Your evidence from the original KJV is simply false.

WILLOWTREE

Yes you did.

You implied it straight out.

Anyone who knows anything about Dr. Scott knows about his famous 3 1/2 year foray into agnosticism. IOW, you asserted, IOW, you had no idea what you are talking about = you called me a liar at the drop of a hat.

No problem - an atheist calling a theist a liar ?

What else is new ?

Dr. Scott has explained his agnosticism in ALL the following teachings:

http://www.drgenescott.com/thearchives.htm

Then click "subject" then click "Resurrection".

Each teaching below contains the evidence for the Resurrection that was researched by him during his agnosticism at Stanford. Dr. Scott says this in each teaching below at some point:

VF-424
WebTV
4/7/85
The Resurrection: A Factual Basis; Who Moved the Stone by Morison; Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (taught at the Shrine Auditorium)

VF-631
WebTV
03/26/89
The Resurrection: Facts & Theories

VF-681
WebTV
03/11/90
Faith: Three Disciple's Reactions to the Reality af a Miracle - The Resurrection Message (John 6)

VF-687
WebTV
04/22/90
The Choice Forced by uhe Unique Claims of Jesus Christ - A Background for The Resurrection

VF-688
WebTV
04/29/90
The Resurrection: Proof of Our Faith - A Look At The Evidence

VF-792
WebTV
04/19/92
The Resurrection

VF-990
WebTV
2/11/96
The Basis For Our Faith, Part 1

VF-991
WebTV
2/18/96
The Basis For Our Faith, Part 2

VF-992
WebTV
2/25/96
The Basis For Our Faith, Part 3

VF-993
WebTV
3/3/96
The Basis For Our Faith, Part 4

VF-995
WebTV
3/17/96
The Basis For Our Faith, Part 5

VF-998
WebTV
04/07/96
Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

VF-999
WebTV
04/14/96
The Resurrection via Deuteronomy 8:2

VF-1042
WebTV
02/09/97
Basic Christianity Defined: The Church's "Self" via the Resurrection

VF-1047
WebTV
03/16/97
Basic Christianity Defined: The Law, Resurrected Christ & Bond of Faith

VF-1049
WebTV
03/30/97
Basic Christianity Defined and The Resurrection (Easter)

VF-1055
WebTV
05/11/97
Basic Christianity Defined: The Resurrection & the Sign of Jonah

VF-1064
WebTV
07/13/97
Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1065
WebTV
07/20/97
Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection, The Facts (Part 2)

VF-1066
WebTV
07/27/97
Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection, Faith Not Perfection (Part 3)

VF-1103
WebTV
04/12/98
The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1104
WebTV
04/19/98
The Resurrection: The Evidence (Part 2)

VF-1154
WebTV
04/04/99
The Resurrection 1999

VF-1208
WebTV
04/23/00
Romans 1 Verse 17 (G) - The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1209
WebTV
05/07/00
Romans 1 Verse 17 (H) - The Resurrection (Part 2)

VF-1210
WebTV
05/14/00
Romans 1 Verse 17 - The Resurrection (Part 3)

VF-1211
WebTV
05/21/00
Romans 1 Verse 17 - The Resurrection (Part 4)

VF-1212
WebTV
05/28/00
Romans 1 Verse 17 (K) - The Resurrection (Part 5)


S-4642
WebTV
06/04/00
The Shroud of Turin and The Resurrection


VF-1256
WebTV
04/18/01
Romans 1 Verses 21 & 22

- The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1257
WebTV
04/15/01
Romans 1 Verses 21 & 22

- The Resurrection (Part 2)

VF-1303
WebTV
3/31/02
Romans 2 Verses 4 & 5 - The Resurrection

VF-1357
WebTV
4/20/03

The Resurrection

VF-1407
WebTV
4/11/04

Romans 3 Verse 25 - The Resurrection

Willowtree: Now how silly of you to jump to a false conclusion based on assumed ignorance.

Where does it say it IS NOT cross departmental ?

Dr. Scott himself told me it was.

Dr. Scott's degree is a research degree and it was awarded FROM the University itself and not from any department. It is the last degree handed out at graduation.


I didn't say it was incorrect.

I said your chronology of facts was a drunken rhetoric.

Anyway, reject the authenticity of Jasher ?

Atheists reject anything theist for obvious reasons.

Atheists have to assert silly illogical "refutations" lest the validity of their worldview be diminished.

How do you ever expect to get accurate information about theist text from atheists ?

Answer: Rhetorical question.

How does anyone expect to get accurate information about ToE from a theist ?

Same answer.

Conclusion:

Philosophy settles the issue.

Theist philosophy has sources - atheist has nothing.

The Bible teaches atheism is a penalty from God for resisting His perceived encroachments. source: Dr. Gene Scott

http://www.drgenescott.com/thearchives.htm click "Romans" then click "Chapter 1".

WT

Mageth

Oh, and in response to your assertions about how all of this is some atheistic mind-set that forces us to reject out-of-hand what evidence is presented, I'd wager that most scholars of the Bible and related texts, including Theistic scholars, would agree that the "Book of Jasher" is not authentic. In addition, I'd wager that most theists on this board would agree with that as well.

I'm not presenting that as an argument from authority, but in response to the notion that the rejection of the Book of Jasher as being authentic has anything to do with anyone here being an atheist.

yummyfur

Sorry, but his degree is a standard degree at Stanford and many other schools, it combines philosophy and education, but is not
considered cross departmental with religious studies. All Phd's are considered "research degrees" because one has to do independant research and writing of a thesis paper, that's why they are called research degrees.

here's the Degree at Stanford
http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/programs...tml#Philosophy

These persons usually become Administrators at Colleges, or Professors of Education. This is kind of the job, Scott took on very early in his Career when helping to form Oral Roberts University. This degree gives one no educational background in any requisite fields, to claim any authority as an expert on text authenticity. So your "claim from authority", which is a bogus claim anyway, actually has no reasonable authority behind it to boot.