FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-31-2009, 09:38 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

. . . but Almah means virgin and if it does not mean that it should because a virgin birth is the necessary condition or Elizabeth could not have concevied John at her ripe old age.

Do you think maybe that those sholars are embassaed for the words used in the Hebrew bible because they cannot handle them, and is that not typical of a scholar?
Chili is offline  
Old 01-01-2010, 06:48 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiopen View Post

If the person's motivation is not to discuss the thing on its merits the discussion is polemical.
I thought a polemical was a controversial argument that discussed the matter on its merits.

If the argument did not discuss the thing on its merits, I thought the discussion would not be polemical.

I look at Carrier's argument regarding the date of the birth of Christ to be a good example of a polemical argument.

Does all this really matter??
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-01-2010, 09:25 AM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manwithdream View Post
Is it possible to disagree with how Christianity explains certain quotes in the Hebrew Bible without being told your arguments are polemical? When Bible scholars disagree about certain quotes, their arguments are seen as scholarly. Is it because they only disagree with other scholars? If they say they disagree with the traditional Christian explanation, does it then become polemics? (I hope someone understands what I mean because I am not sure how to ask this question.)
In polemics the author describes his opponents' position for the purpose of arguing against it. The description is nearly always felt to be inaccurate by the people who are argued against. You must have experienced this yourself. When you read someone describing Jewish beliefs for the purpose of arguing against them, how often do you feel that the arguer is being fair? I bet the answer is "hardly ever" and that this is true even when the arguer is honestly trying to be fair.

I think the solution is for you to state what you think the various bible passages mean, and explain why you think they mean what they do. Avoid speaking for your opponents as much as possible.

Peter.
Petergdi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.