Lugubert

I know nothing of the books and people mentioned, but how does
differ from
?

spin

No, I haven't. Not even with your weaseling. Just with the difficulties you're having rump covering.

Oh, you poor innocent of implication personage, you.

I don't mind sophistry when well done.

Why do you keep showing your linguistic handicaps? You make clear with what follows that it wasn't a matter of misreading, but miswriting -- yours.

I'm sure people need you as their defender. :wave:

Amaleq13

I'm well aware of that motive being relevant but I'm also aware it doesn't change the obvious answers to my questions. You know, the ones you deliberately avoided because they reveal the utterly specious nature of your position.

Ah, yes, "necessarily". Such a relevant term here since we are certainly dealing with such inevitabilities. Your refusal to answer the questions is telling. You just want to pick another fight regardless of how specious the position you must defend might be.

The straw man was quickly set afire so know you must retreat behind the barrier of ignoring plain implications. The hyperbole has been revealed for what it is. I suspect the next step is to suggest that claiming to understand the implications of Dever's words involves some sort of mind reading ability. Sorry, did I jump your line? You need new smoke, amigo. The stuff you've got is getting to thin to cover your tracks.

I wouldn't dream of trying to continue to use yet another incredibly poor analogy from you. I doubt you truly do not see the difference between saying something positive about a serial killer and saying something positive about a book that supports a view one opposes. But you use the smoke you've got and hope for the best, right?

spin

You must be joking.


spin

Solitary Man

Dever himself is of the conservative position, so that if he were to mean that the conservative position is as horrid as you imply, than he is denigrating his own position. Not that he accepted the Exodus as history, but he's conservative still.

-Jay-

Dever's not nearly so conservative that he can be counted in the same camp as Hoffmeier seems to be in. He can quite legitimately be referring to the position more conservative than himself in his quote.

regards,

NinJay

Solitary Man

I don't think you could infer that from his words. And while he by context is referring to a more conservative position than the one he holds, it's not explicit, and Dever usually does not level that sort of animosity. The burden lies with you for reading extra into the passage.

Toto

Some posts that were getting off topic have been split here and locked.

matthewthomas

If everyone seems so concerned about what Dever thinks, or what exactly he has trying to convey in that line, why not try to email him and ask him about it? I don't really see what is so important about exactly what shades of meaning he had in his answer.
Has anyone here read the book in question? I certainly haven't, but would be interested if it is the best case that can be made to defend its position, regardless of whether Dever ultimately meant that or not, or whether Dever is likely to agree with the books argument or not.
Best wishes,
Matthew

-Jay-

Dever's words in question are open to interpretation. I merely pointed out one possibility, nothing more.

Matthewthomas makes an excellent point - if Dever's specific meaning is that important, perhap he should be given the opportunity to clarify if he wishes.

regards,

NinJay