Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 02-15-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Nonsense. That's what the apologists want everyone to think.

Of course, if the text is unreliable, then the history will be unreliable, too. However, a perfectly reliable text could be historically worthless.

Oh my GOD! "OF COURSE, IF THE TEXT IS UNRELIABLE THEN THE HISTORY WILL BE UNRELIABLE, TOO".

JESUS CHRIST!!!!

THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT IT.

"TEXTUAL RELIABILITY" IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO "HISTORICAL RELIABILTY".

Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, woe is me! Argumentum ad repetitium added to argumentum ad capslock. Boy, have you put me in my place!

Switch89 · 02-16-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Oh my GOD! "OF COURSE, IF THE TEXT IS UNRELIABLE THEN THE HISTORY WILL BE UNRELIABLE, TOO".

JESUS CHRIST!!!!

THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT IT.

"TEXTUAL RELIABILITY" IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO "HISTORICAL RELIABILTY".

Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, woe is me! Argumentum ad repetitium added to argumentum ad capslock. Boy, have you put me in my place!

Allow me to add some clarification: Textual reliability asymmetrically affects historical reliability. If the textual reliability is poor, then historical reliability is necessarily poor. However, if textual reliability is excellent, then that doesn't necessarily mean that the historical reliability is excellent. The historical reliability could be anything from pure fiction to pure truth on the assumption that the textual reliability is high.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.