Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 04-29-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
It was just an entertaining article aimed at a secular audience, with no attempt to soft pedal its conclusions for religious believers.

Is this a generous way of saying that he was making no attempt to present an unbiased report?

...my joke, though you probably won't find it funny either...

Haran

Vorkosigan · 04-29-2002, 06:27 PM

BAR has a definite pro-Bible bias, in that it attempts to align the archaeological record as firmly as it can with what the Bible says. It has been criticizing, without much success, the evolving consensus on the lack of a record for Exodus. For all that it remains a useful reference with lots of nice articles, and i read it whenever possible.

Vorkisgan

Haran · 04-29-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
BAR has a definite pro-Bible bias...

Don't tell that to them.

I've had a subscription for years, and the articles that I have read definitely do not tend toward "pro-Bible bias".

Haran

SmashingIdols · 04-29-2002, 09:08 PM

Okay, I admit I am confused as hell.

Do all the winky eyes in Haran's posts imply that he finds this funny because BAR is about as biased about the bible as Ronald McDonald is about Burgers, or because he thinks he got one over on the atheist extremists and really believes what he is writing?

Can anybody explain it to me? Haran?

Haran · 04-30-2002, 05:17 AM

Double post. Dagnabit...

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]

Haran · 04-30-2002, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
There was a post here in this forum not too awful long ago in which someone made a post praising the Harper's magazine article. I think some other Christians chimed in on that thread that Lazare was biased and presenting a one-sided story. It seemed that Lazare and his article were defended as almost reasonable, if not so.

I just received BAR in the mail the other day and happened upon the article. Since I remembered an earlier post here promoting Lazare's article in Harper's (perhaps you missed that one), I thought I'd share the opinion in the respected BAR magazine which I happen to mostly agree with. Hopefully, this will change the minds (though probably not) of those who seemed to almost champion Lazare's article before.

Help?

Haran

(P.S. - I do go a little overboard with winkys and smiley faces, don't I? I like to think it is my jovial nature slipping out.

Heh, I once jokingly accused someone else's post of looking like a Christmas tree. I guess my posts are not far behind that.)

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]

Haran · 04-30-2002, 05:38 AM

Original thread (for those who feel somehow left out - I should've included in my original post...):

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000131" target="_blank">Harper's magazine cover story: "False Testament"</a>

Haran

Jayhawker Soule · 04-30-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
Since I remembered an earlier post here promoting Lazare's article in Harper's (perhaps you missed that one), I thought I'd share the opinion in the respected BAR magazine which I happen to mostly agree with. Hopefully, this will change the minds (though probably not) of those who seemed to almost champion Lazare's article before.

Quote:

From the BAR critique:
Take the Exodus, for example. I doubt you'd find many scholars, once they leave aside any religious convictions they might have, who'd accept the Biblical account at face value. We have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai. But many of the details in the Bible's account do mesh with what we know historically.

"Hopefully, this will change the minds (although probably not) of those who seemed to almost champion" Biblical inerrancy.

Haran · 04-30-2002, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
"Hopefully, this will change the minds (although probably not) of those who seemed to almost champion" Biblical inerrancy.

Maybe we can all just be a little more critical...

Haran

spin · 05-01-2002, 03:54 PM

Haran re BAR:
--------
No, this is not a Christian or Jewish magazine!

This is a respected archaeological journal in which many of the best scholars publish articles.
--------

BAR is a rag, run by a religiously conservative money maker, who given the opportunity can be very nasty, as in the case of a letter sent to Ha-Aretz in Jerusalem by Ze'ev Herzog, which SHanks responded to in an ignominious manner, using dirty rhetorical trick after dirty rhetorical trick. The guy has little scholarship in his approach. The articles that get published are usually too short for any serious matters to be clearly put forward. It all works out fine, so as not to keep his reading audience too bewildered, get controversial opinions stated so as to have them shot down by the conservative establishment, and the reader feels happy.

Haran:
--------
Oh well, I really wish people could have less of an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith and try to present an unbiased case.

--------

It's very hard for a religionist to understand what an unbiased case is when the subject is religion. There is no way for the religionist to step outside and get any perspective. Obviously, anyone who gives analyses from outside will appear to have "an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith".

04-30-2002, 05:17 AM	#15
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Double post. Dagnabit... [ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2002, 06:27 PM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	BAR has a definite pro-Bible bias, in that it attempts to align the archaeological record as firmly as it can with what the Bible says. It has been criticizing, without much success, the evolving consensus on the lack of a record for Exodus. For all that it remains a useful reference with lots of nice articles, and i read it whenever possible. Vorkisgan

04-29-2002, 09:08 PM	#14
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Okay, I admit I am confused as hell. Do all the winky eyes in Haran's posts imply that he finds this funny because BAR is about as biased about the bible as Ronald McDonald is about Burgers, or because he thinks he got one over on the atheist extremists and really believes what he is writing? Can anybody explain it to me? Haran?

04-30-2002, 05:38 AM	#17
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Original thread (for those who feel somehow left out - I should've included in my original post...): <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000131" target="_blank">Harper's magazine cover story: "False Testament"</a> Haran

05-01-2002, 03:54 PM	#20
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Haran re BAR: -------- No, this is not a Christian or Jewish magazine! This is a respected archaeological journal in which many of the best scholars publish articles. -------- BAR is a rag, run by a religiously conservative money maker, who given the opportunity can be very nasty, as in the case of a letter sent to Ha-Aretz in Jerusalem by Ze'ev Herzog, which SHanks responded to in an ignominious manner, using dirty rhetorical trick after dirty rhetorical trick. The guy has little scholarship in his approach. The articles that get published are usually too short for any serious matters to be clearly put forward. It all works out fine, so as not to keep his reading audience too bewildered, get controversial opinions stated so as to have them shot down by the conservative establishment, and the reader feels happy. Haran: -------- Oh well, I really wish people could have less of an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith and try to present an unbiased case. -------- It's very hard for a religionist to understand what an unbiased case is when the subject is religion. There is no way for the religionist to step outside and get any perspective. Obviously, anyone who gives analyses from outside will appear to have "an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.