CX

Curriculum Vitae. It's the academic equivalent of a resumé

Your own bias is showing. I do not equate evangelist with nonadcademic. One can be both. Arguably Luke Timothy Johnson is both.

On the contrary your entire argument is one from authority. None of what you said above has any relevance to the quality of Scott's scholarship. In the academic world and in the scientific world it is one's peer reviewed publication of original research that speaks to one's authority in a given discipline. Dr. Scott has none. In the end we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally: why is it that I can't find Scott's "research" in written form online?

I don't want to buy a book or a tape, or listen to audio over the net. I just want to read about Scott's claims on a website. Apparently, I cannot: at least, not from his website.

Jack the Bodiless

something else I've noticed:
It might be amusing to see Scott's creationist material.

...Because, apparently, none of it has reached TalkOrigins, which has no mention of him that I can find.

Sven

Can we conclude that Scott's material is much worse than Gish's or Hovind's one from this?
Or that is so baffling and intimidating to "evilutionists" that TO simply suppresses this material?

Sandslice

I would never have imagined that to be possible.

Now, back to Matthew, and a repetition of my question: is there any evidence that "Zechariah son of Berechiah" was killed "between the temple and the holy place" as asserted by Matthew in 23:35? (Luke, with a similar account in 11:51, only gives the name Zechariah without a "son of" after it.)

1. Zechariah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, is identified in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah; necessarily, this places this Zechariah after Babylon (Ezra and Nehemiah both speak of post-exilic events, and Zech is "date-stamped" textually, in the second year of Darius.)

2. Zechariah son of Jehoiada is described as having been stoned to death by conspirators, between the temple and the holy place (2Chr 24:20.) This is before Hezekiah, and thus before Babylon.

CX

Don't be obtuse. There was ANOTHER Zech son of Bech who was killed the same way that the OT doesn't mention.

NOGO

Reality check.

When the Jews were exiled the Greeks and their language did not rule the world. Babylon did.
If you have any doubt WILLOW just read Daniel and Neb's dream.

Babylon's empire fell to the Persians who permitted Jews to return to their native land. Still no Greeks in the area.

I take it that this is suppose to justify Jesus reading from the Septugint.
WILLOW you are dead wrong.

NOGO

WILLOW,

You can take as an example the issue of the two donkeys.

You claim that the Septuagint has the King ridding on two donkeys just like Matthew says about Jesus.

Now if you consider that other evangelists have Jesus ridding one Donkey then why does Matthew has this ridiculous idea that someone can ride two animals at the same time.

It's simple. HE READ IT IN THE SEPTUAGINT !

Get it!

You see, WILLOW, either Matthew misread the OT (what I claim) or the people who translated the OT into greek (LXX) got it wrong.

It does not matter which. Matthew copied.

Even if Jesus did ride a colt into Jerusalem. Matthew wanted to make it into a fulfilled prophecy. He therefore went fishing for the reference and copied from it.

Sandslice

Nice quote mine; "I would never have imagined that to be possible" has its antecedent in Sven's comment about Scott's creationist material being "worse than Gish or Hovind." For it's hard for me to conceive of what could be worse than Hovind.

To the obtusity: one would think that a second Zech, being murdered within the Temple complex, would be far, far more than a non-entity in the literature of the day. Especially if that Zech also happened to have the same father as a canonised (Tanach) prophet (or, more extremely, was that prophet...)

Whyso? Imagine, if you will, that another Abraham Lincoln had also been killed at Ford's theatre. Would this fact be well-known for its coincidence, such that people might confuse the two incidents? Or would it fade into obscurity, having no trace but for local news reports?

How much more, then, if such a coincidence belonged to a people for whom "coincidence" was a Sign from Above, and if this Sign occurred within the very House of the Man Above? Why is it believable, then, that the Hebrews (by then, Jews) would not have documented such an event?

Perhaps the documents have been lost; but then, whose case is supported by the argument of silence?

WILLOWTREE

Lets assume he copied - so what ?

The claim is that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

Why is Matthew a fraud/liar/wrong ?

Matthew wrote to convince.

How is it you derive the exact opposite from text ?

Your reasonings do not make sense.

You are dismissing because it is perfectly accurate - therefore, it must be fraud. I do not understand your position.