Coleslaw

Prove it. Prove that I disagreed to begin with.

mdd344

The evil one,
Do you really not know the difference between Protestants, and other religious groups? I am a NT Christian, period. I am nothing more, nothing less. And I am not, have never been, a protestant. Protestants orginated in the Reformation movement as 'protestors' agianst the Catholic Church. Nor am I , btw, a Catholic. The church of which I am a part had its beginning as prophecied by the OT writers in Jerusalem approx. A.D. 29. That body, the church, is the church of Christ.

And no, I do not believe after my experience here that I will ever believe the motivations are different. I'll allow for some exceptions, to avoid generalizing. But overall that is what I think I see.

How about I give you a link to the Aramaic arguments. Perhaps two links. Would you care to have that?

Sauron

Actually, it's been the truth so far. If you feel like listing apologists who have done the things I list, then by all means post up a list.

Wrong. it is not religious to believe in no god.

No. They start with examining the evidence first, and see where it leads them. Like a hunt for clues in a murder mystery. Once they have enough facts to create an explanation, that's when they publish their results.

Or, they read someone else's published report, and go off to test and see if it's correct or not. They may also publish the results of that investigation.

But notice in both cases that they start with facts, and end up with a position. Apologists do it in reverse: start with a position, and then go looking for facts to support it.

No one can guarantee that ALL scholars behave like that, but the vast majority of them do. That's because they don't have a religious belief riding on the outcome.

That hasn't happened very much, if at all. If you'd catch up on my previous posting, you'd see where this claim didn't stand up.

And you'd be wrong. Scholars don't believe in things for which there exists no evidence. It's not a bias against the supernatural; it's the total lack of any supporting evidence.

You're complaining that nobody will take your unsupported word for these things. Didja ever think that maybe a little proof would help it along?

Totally, absolutely incorrect. Merely becuase there are two sides, does not mean that the two sides are the same. The scholars have:

* the vast majority of the evidence;
* the fully developed research processes that catch mistakes and optimize for the truth; and
* the peer-reviewed publications,

and they lack of religious agenda.

By contrast, the apologists have:

* little if any evidence;
* no research processes and no mechanism for catching mistakes, since everything is "interpreted" or guarded by doctrinal statements; and
* almost never publish in peer-reviewed publications.

All they really have is their agenda.

You were wrong about that back then. And you're wrong about it now.

There are high quality sources. And there are garbage quality sources. Apologists are almost always relying upon, or quoting, the garbage quality sources.

Why would you mistrust him based upon his religion, as opposed to the quality of his argument?

The Evil One

Apparently I know it rather better than you do.


I will believe that as soon as I see you declare a belief that is not a belief held by fundamentalist protestants. So far, I haven't.


That's what every True Christian (TM) says about their church, including Catholics and Protestants (and probably the orthodox too though I've never actually encountered the claim myself from a member of the Orthodox church).



How about you present them, in your own words, here in the thread, so we can all see them and form an opinion on them. That should not be too much of a stretch for you.

Sauron

Yes. And I'm correct.

I have. The majority of them are poorly educated in the topics I listed above.

You're flatly wrong about this. In your frustration, you are tossing out whatever claim you can get your hands on, hoping that it sticks. I disagree with them because their logic is bad, they do not deal with the primary evidence, and because they substitute wishful thinking for evidence, time and time again. There may be many of them well educated, but not in the relevant fields we are discussing, above.

Notsri

I wonder if someone might be able to either direct me to some of the extant scholarship on Daniel 4's relationship to 4Q242 (the prayer of Nabonidus) or, perhaps, comment themself on the relation (or even both). I suppose I have a number of questions. I'm especially curious to know why scholars generally feel so confident that the tale in 4Q242 lies behind Daniel 4. Why is it unlikely, apparently, that the inverse is true, that Daniel 4 is the source of 4Q242? How old is 4Q242—the constituent fragments themselves, that is? One of the more striking similarities between 4Q242 and Daniel 4 (the words "becoming like a beast") is found within a restored portion of 4Q242: how confident are scholars of the accuracy of that restoration? How damaged, exactly, is the text at that point? Was said restoration made on the assumption that Daniel 4 necessarily supplies the otherwise lacking(?) text? —questions such as these. Thanks.

Regards,
Notsri

mdd344

Sauron,
I completely disagree with you. The scholars of whom we are speaking start with "no miracles can exist." The go from there. That is a religion, whether you admit it or not.




The Evil one,
I will take that as a 'no' you don't understand about Protestants, Catholics, and NT Christians. And no, my beliefs may be simliar to some of theirs, but by no means all, and in some very important points they are very different.

I simply am not going to take the time to reproduce the volumes of info on the Aramaic argument. I'll copy and paste it if you like. The two links I read are large, and in depth. I could do it in my own words. I just really do not have the time however, to do so.

Sauron

No. They are rejected because the evidence is bad, incomplete, contradictory, or simply non-existent.

You started out by trying to prove your point using Daniel. That didn't work, because we know Daniel, ancient history, and the facts of that topic better than you know them.

So now you've switched your tactic. You're trying to pretend that the only possible reason to reject your claims is because of not liking those claims.

Well, guess what? You're wrong. We judge the claims of the bible with the same amount of careful thought as we judge claims from any other ancient text. The bible does better than some texts, and worse than some others. But all in all, the record is mediocre and the apologetics claims are appallingly bad.

It really, truly is all a matter of evidence. If you have any, then feel free to present it.

mdd344

Sauron,
Sorry pal. Your bias is clear. The evidence is there. You can go and read it, and do what you want with it. You have the ability to find more. It is all in your court.

mdd344

Notsri,
This link was very helpful to me. So too are the souces cited, which you can also go and find for even deeper reading.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html