rmadison

Infested...that's a good choice of words!

Roger Pearse

An interesting and original approach to a difficult subject.

May I second this? It is simply too easy to repeat hearsay, and I for one am tired of hearing (e.g.) that the canon of scripture was settled at the First Council of Nicaea.

As M.J.Routh, sometime President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and author of Reliquiae Sacrae, said 150 years ago, "Always verify your references." He meant it as an injunction to authors, but it's a good general rule.

Of course we were all cubs once. Let's not beat up the newbies.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doctor X

. . . only if they disagree with me.

--J.D.

Toto

Moderators note: we discourage cutting and pasting of entire articles (or diatribes as the case may be.) A link in this case is sufficient.

But we also discourage pasting a link and asking what people think. Please contribute something of yourself to the discussion. Why do you think this article is relevant here?

I think JP Holding has set up a few straw men and knocked them over. He refuses to link to rebuttals of his articles on the Infidels site, even when they are made by people with a level of scholarship at least equal to his own - hardly "trailer park scholarship."

I can at least thank you for bringing that particular vile level of insult to my attention.

Vorkosigan

LOL. I'll bite. Holding's argument is erroneous. One does not acquire "the right" to argue because one knows stuff. That's nonsensical. Anyone can argue anything they like, and arguments are evaluated not on what their promulgator knows, but on things like whether they use appropriate evidence and are constructed logically. The argument stands by itself.

The purpose of scholarship is not to validate oneself as a presenter of arguments, but to enable oneself to present richer arguments that take into account a variety of viewpoints, evidence from many disciplines, and do not repeat what has gone before.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Reeaaallly??

No.

Autonemesis

Doubt is its own benefit, its own reward. I don't obtain the benefit of my doubt from any believer or non-believer.

penumbra

I see, and I would imagine that I should apply that same sort of standard to, say, the author of Genesis? Or, for that matter, any of the biblical texts?

Haran

Yes.

1 Thess. 5:20-21
"Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Advice good enough for a skeptic, straight from the Bible.

Vinnie

If I may retranslate Holding's paper in a more short, concise form:

JP Holding: "You have to have an IQ of 40 billion and be a brain surgeon // rocket-scientists who is thoroughly equipped with doctorates in 47 different fields to be able to know enough about the Bible to say two contradictory "looking" passages are in fact contradictory. But the Joe-moron, pew-warmer who is barely capable of tieing his own shoes can know enough about the Bible to understand the basic message of all its contents."

It begs the question of why can't I know enough about various parts to rationally or justifiably believe they are incompatible? You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Holding!

At any rate, maybe I misread it but thats my first impression. Of course I agree with the inherant difficulties of interpreting passages correctly. This is one of my major issues with Jesus research. You have to master too much material to be thorough and comprehensive. Its impossible to do, even for Peter Kirby

But come on. Pointing out a few errors in the Bible is not all that difficult!
http://www.after-hourz.net/biblicalerrancy.html

Vinnie