mdd344

The entire idea that it is the "scholars" who make the ratioanl arguments (never irrational mind you) is an 'elitism' that is unbelievable.

Which one of you can name three Bible apologists whom you trust, and whom you have seen make sound, logical arguments, about things with which you still disagree?

Coleslaw

Actually, the entire idea is that scholars make arguments, rational or not, that are reviewed and corrected by other scholars. That's that whole "peer review" thingie.

mdd344

Coleslaw, but why then are not the 'peers' of Apologists, who certainly do not all agree with one another, not counted in such? The atmosphere isn't much different. Some Bible apologists say things that are untrue, and it is pointed out. Here, however, it seems that all it takes for one to reject an idea/argument is the finding out that the person who made it was a 'Bible apologist.'

Sauron

Elite?

Why is it elite to believe that people who:

* have spent their entire lives studying the topic in question;
* pursued advanced degrees in the topic;
* dealt first-hand with the physical and archaeological evidence;

might know more about it, than someone trying to defend a religious viewpoint might know?

"Bible apologists" and "trust" tend to not mix very well together. By their nature, bible apologists are pushing a viewpoint first, and considering the evidence *second*.

There are authors that I have read who I think are well-versed in the topic. Father John Dominic Crossan is an example.

The Evil One

Do you really need it spelling out, mdd? Apologists are not trusted around here because their stated goal is not to find out the truth, which is the goal of a scholar. Their goal is to defend the Christian religion.

In other words they do exactly what you are so eager to accuse us of doing - they assume what they ought to be trying to prove, namely the truth of everything in the Bible.

If you assume the truth of one of your sources, and do not open yourself up to the possibility that it is incorrect in some particulars, then you are not a scholar, because a scholar never does this.

Sauron

"Peer" means "in the same field of study." Archaeologists reviewing what other archaeologists are publishing.

Yes. That's what we are doing here, tonight, with the wild claims about Daniel, Darius, and Babylon.

That's because bible apologists are rarely versed in the core study areas: archaeology, ancient history, textual criticism, etc. So they're usually caught red-handed making some pretty obviously incorrect statements in those areas. Instead, bible apologists are just another kind of evangelist: someone with a preconceived notion, looking for the best way to package it for an audience. It's hard to take a salesman seriously, I suppose. Other posters might have a different take on it.

mdd344

Sauron,
Your entire assumption is that Bible apologists have not done the things you list for 'scholars.' That is completley off base.

Your begining point is, 'anyone trying to defend what they believe religiously cannot be trusted.'
It is 'religious' to believe that there is no God! So the 'scholars' make an effort to defend what they believe. Please do not begin to suggest that they are all these objective and rational thinkers who just want the evidence. That is simply untrue. One need only look at all the ridiculous positions some have taken through the years on various matters, only to have to eat their words when archaeology confirms what the Bible said all along.

By their nature you say. I say the same about the scholars who do not believe in the supernatural.

It is, in the final analysis, no different on either side of the fence. Both sides are equal in their desire, and both sides have both good and bad scholars.

Which is why I said earlier that this would come down to a 'source verses source' argument. The determining factor is not the evidence, for I can match your sources one by one. And you can do the same. That you reject mine means nothing. I reject yours. See?

Is the father John the only one you can trust? I don't know him, but being Catholic I would have to check carefully given their view of the Bible. Is there another?

Coleslaw

You are starting to remind me of a Reader's Digest anecdote I read many years ago. It went something like this:
People who reject the arguments you have given here have given you reasons for the rejection, and the reasons haven't been "Oh, Dr. So-and So said that? Then it can't be true." They have been of the form, "What Dr. So and So said in 1929 was refuted in 1976" or "That shows the fallacy of special pleading" or "That's an assertion without evidence", etc.
Maybe the reason people tell you these things is so you will know where your arguments are lacking.

mdd344

The evil one stated,

"Do you really need it spelling out, mdd? Apologists are not trusted around here because their stated goal is not to find out the truth, which is the goal of a scholar. Their goal is to defend the Christian religion. In other words they do exactly what you are so eager to accuse us of doing - they assume what they ought to be trying to prove, namely the truth of everything in the Bible.If you assume the truth of one of your sources, and do not open yourself up to the possibility that it is incorrect in some particulars, then you are not a scholar, because a scholar never does this."


Sauron said next, "That's because bible apologists are rarely versed in the core study areas: archaeology, ancient history, textual criticism, etc. Instead, bible apologists are just another kind of evangelist: someone with a preconceived notion, looking for the best way to package it for an audience."

Look at the views of 'religious' people. What amazing and unfettered bias you guys have. And do you know 'why' you have it? It is because they disagree with you. Don't even try to suggest 'not well educated' and the like because there are plenty who are VERY educated.

You ought to check out apologeticspress.org sometime and just note the level of scholarship. There are many others who have studied to the highest level in their respective fields.

Who is an apologists, besides the father person, that you believe is trustworthy, and why is he such to you?

The Evil One

The majority of the biblical scholars who have concluded that Daniel dates from the mid C2 BCE are Christians. You seem to think that only militant atheists could possibly be critical of the stances you propose. You are wrong.