Tercel

Vinnie,
Some comments about Holding's rebuttal...
Bet you didn't know that!
Translation:
"Someone whos claims I think are wrong claims that these words can be used to prove something wrong, therefore all such use of these words is wrong"

What on earth is "high-context" other than a meaningless two-word excuse for why it's legitimate for him to hypotheticalize ad infinitum?

Am I the only one who can't believe what I'm reading here? Is this the pot calling the kettle black or what?

Okay, when he resorts to complaining about a one-letter spelling mistake then he's obviously got a problem.


Okay, it looks like Holdings actual points against your piece are about one paragraph long. The rest seems to be ad-hominem filler. I am not impressed.

Tercel

Vinnie, I was just reading your website:

In the "Overview and Brief statement of faith" page you say:
"Verbal plenary inspiration along with a literal reading of Genesis yields a thousand year old earth."
=> You've missed out the "six" here.

In the "Comological and Astronomical theology" you say:
"Run a mile and you may be fatigued but you'd have to run 93,000,000 million to reach the sun"
=> You mean "93 million"

Peter Kirby

"the Magi were actual persons who lived in the vicinity of Matthew's proposed Antiochene base."

How does Holding figure that the Magi resided in the greater Antioch area?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I skimmed his response. I'm not impressed either. I'm not surprised though as I expected "hypotheticalizing" ad nausea, ad infinitum.

Well, Holding and I agree on one thing regarding the infancy accounts it seems. Since Holding agrees that it is impossible to defend the historicity of the magi through any sort of "scientifically-controlled historical reconstruction" whats the argument here?

I don't think this deserves a point by point rebuttal so I'll probably mention his response in a separate piece, link to it and mention a few things. I'm not putting the time into doing a point by point analysis since Holding actually seems to agree with the overall conclusion of my paper. I find his view very curious at this point. Holding agrees that he can provide no historical evidence in favor of the historicity of the Matthean magi. In fact he thinks its impossible to provide it! Yet he asserts in his paper that the "basic data behind them [the infancy acounts including the Matthean Magi] remains as solid as ever"??? To say the data is just as solid as ever really says a lot then, huh?? Somebody give me some asprin :banghead:

Everybody watch Holding squirm

Vinnie

Vinnie

Tercel, thanks for pointing out those two errors I'll fix them soon and change wave to waive too

Vinnie

I started going point by point but I didn't have the patience to finish it :banghead:

So I just threw together a shorter version:

http://www.acfaith.com/jp2.html

Vinnie

Silent Dave

Why even bother responding to Turkel? He (a) has no life beyond his website, and (b) believes that he ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST respond to every article to or about him, lest he appear defeated. Thus by responding to him, you only encourage him, and take the first step along an infinite regress.

Turkel's inanity and immaturity are his own worst enemies for anyone who gives a damn about truth and rationality. I'd be quite comfortable letting matters rest there.


Dave