Steven Avery

This is silly-season. You are denying that Richard has about 3-5 auxiliary driveby contradiction claims ? And that even the rah-rah club was silent about the worst of them, Simeon and Anna ?

Oh, you are just saying that you don't really care about Carrier errors and poor methodology and improper accusastions. Since he is attacking the Bible.

Steven Avery

If anybody other than Sauron ses me discussing "historical process" please give me the quote. Even from the rah-rah group.

There are none so blind ...

Sauron

1. I'm denying that you disproved they were contradictions.

2. I'm also denying your claim that Richard is sloppy, dishonest, or agenda-driven. Multiple examples were given of Richard providing both sides of an argument, weighing it carefully, and even shooting down some common skeptic arguments when they didn't agree with the evidence.

3. And I'm denying that you made any kind of a dent in his claims. Instead, you tried to ad hom your way through the debate. But as usual, you hope to use volume and multicolor assault to make up for what your argument lacks in proof. Just don't expect anyone to be convinced or impressed.

No, what I'm saying is that your overblown hyperbole and multi-colored attacks did not work. And your current behavior -- making claims about burden of proof, but not supporting those claims -- well, it only confirms the impression of you as a small dog that barks very loudly.

Sauron

You've already told us where you think the burden of proof lies in historical documents, praxeus.

So I'm asking the question again:

why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof?

As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?

Why does this question scare you so much?

Steven Avery

Skip the rah-rah junk and cut to the chase.
First, I don't call Richard dishonest.
That was your claim against me, removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron I'm denying that you disproved they were contradictions.

So you agree that he puts in 3-5 driveby accusations, and one of them was so bad that even the skeptic crew is silent. Even this skeptic crew ! That is pretty bad.

That type of thing is is not your "historical debate process".
It is simply propaganda.

Are other parts of the paper better? Sure. I even liked the Vardaman section, taken from his previous paper. And he is probably okay in the
"two Quirinius governorship sections" and the "wrong name" sections.

And other aspects are just as bad as the drivebys ? Sadly, yep.

Such as the Megillath Ta’anith strangeness, and forgetting his own selective interpretation of Luke 2:1. Definitely. These are bad blunders or scholastic errors, but you, Sauron, try very hard not to see them.

However I believe strongly Richard will end up changing them if he tries to move with this paper in scholarship circles. Right now they are so just terrible. Just as he is trying to figure out how to rewrite his Septuagint paper, only this is worse.

Beyond that there are a slew of other problems, some mentioned, some awaiting. However the drivebys (especially Simeon and Anna, but the whole concept as well) and the Megillath Ta'antith and the Luke 2:1 selective interps really make the paper a disaster as it is today.

I don't say this for you, Sauron, since you are still back in "historical debate processes run by professional historians Old Folks Home managed by the Skeptic Rah-Rah Group" However there may be another reader or two.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE

Praxius, I would appreciate a response to my post #35.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Actually I told you the concept of "burden of proof" doesn't fit well. Remember ? That you are usually dealing with probabilities and likelihoods.

Where did you think I told you the "burden of proof lies in historical documents" . Show me my quote where I discussed where it lies ?

Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?Why does this question scare you so much?

You simply repeat the same stuff whether answered or not. I have already discussed the nature of logical contradictions and why they have a burden of proof on the claimant. See post #37 above. You didn't like the answer. Fair enough. I see no reason to repeat myself. Yell a little louder. It seems like you use repetition and yelling as repeating the same misrepresentations as a type of therapy.

<edit>

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

OK. Here is the question:

why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof? As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?

You called him sloppy, agenda-driven, and implied that he was dishonest.

(But then again, you made a lot of factually baseless statements about Richard, so what's one more for the road?)

I agree to nothing of the sort.

I do agree, however, that you are wrong about Richard Carrier, and his research.

And I agree that your noise and multi-colored ambush of his character were baseless, since you failed to prove your claims.

I also agree that instead of answering direct questions such as this one:

why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof? As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction?

that you'd rather try to deflect attention from your crippled position, and hope that nobody notices.

Steven Avery

"You are confusing the burden of proof of historical accuracy in with the burden of proof of a supposed internal contradiction."

"With regard to historical research, involving matters of fact, these are, essentially the same thing."

Where do you want me to go with this, RedDave. Supposed internal contradictions are accused and defended based on logic. The sense of respect you have to a text will definitely be a factor. There may not even be direct external historical facts to corroborate. (e.g. Simeon and Anna and Herod).

Historical accuracy can just be a general thing. A writer says that the Spartans fought Ghengis Khan. It's historically inaccurate. ("Burden of proof" is generally not even a factor one way or another, which is why I removed the phrase.)

They are apples and oranges.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Then explain the Scroll of Fasting claim he made. Give us the missing references and dates and refute the existing analysis that others do in fact give in detail. Plug the gap.

Explain why he forgets his own interpretation of Luke 2:1.

Play rah-rah with the Simeon and Anna stuff and try to
claim that it *really* is a contradiction.

Did you even read the material ?