spin

You were not doing what was requested of you, as I understand it. In fact, you were doing what was request that you not do. You were asked to put the article in one place so that a reader could read it integral and not have to run around from post to scattered post, link to link. You are responsible for doing yourself a disservice, by being incapable to presenting your material as a single whole work that you claim it to be. Spattering it through a thread filled with comments, criticisms and complaints, will make your thought, what there is of it, dissipate in the undergrowth.

:tomato:

Adam

Golly, spin, I thought you would be livid if I reposted all ten parts here as one new post. I feared I would get banned. If Toto wants it, I'll do it. Clicking on ten links is pretty easy, I think, and avoids the "wall of text" reader fatigue.

spin

You can leave it the way it is if you like. Nobody will care. You have been bleating to be paid attention to for your abominable nonsense that you have attempted to tart up by calling "peer-reviewed". Presenting the work as a more unified, easier to read whole would--for some--benefit you. Judging on the first two servings (the second of which I've provided a commentary for in its entirety above), it is absolutely no different from your assertion ridden-drivel that you are infamous for.

Adam

September 29, 2011 when I launched my
Gospel Eyewitnesses thread I stated the following principle about (lack of) evidence.
Obviously I have been far too liberal in interpreting this rule. It was aimed at Doug Shaver, but he at least has learned that his personal definition of what "evidence" means does not necessarily prevail over what the dictionary and all common sense dictates. I now realize that I should never have taken seriously those who in that thread were denying that I was presenting evidence. Their implicit "definition" precludes anything from being entered as evidence, which is fine for a hard agnostic. That's the way it is for them, there's nothing I can do about it.

spin

I'd like to play a game with members of our forum. It consists of finding an argument supported by evidence in Adam's submissions studded through this thread that contributes to his claim of an eye witness involved in the writing of the gospel of John. The first person to do so will win the spin kudos award for valor and discernment in the face of adversity.

Jeffrey Gibson

That's not what you were asked to do. You were asked -- and you inexplicably keep ignoring the request -- to upload the entirety of your article in one place.

Are you going to do this or not? If not, then do not expect anyone to read what you wrote.

It's not up to you to tell us what is easy especially since clicking on one link is easier than clicking on ten and then being distracted by extraneous material.

And as to a wall of text -- did you expect the readers of BTB to read your article serially should it have been published there?


Jeffrey

Toto

It has been suggested that you put your work together in a coherent blog post, on this site or others.

From the OP: . . . and then you quote the We passages in Acts, as if a literary convention could establish the date of a document. You ignore every other reason for dating the gospels and Acts to a later date.

Why go on? Do you think this proves anything?

This seems to be your method - find something that seems to explain some small literary aspect, and proclaim that as proof that the document is historical, based on eyewitness testimony.

Jeffrey Gibson

Having published in a number of journals including BTB, I can say with some confidence based in experience that the usual procedure when an article is bumped from its intended place in a particular issue of a journal is to publish it in the next issue of the journal.

Why did this not happen?

Hmm, appeal to personal incredulity, anyone?

Jeffrey (not Jeff)

Adam

It's not that easy. The file I published from here in 2011 in FRDB is corrupted, so I have to restore from the first four posts here in this thread to a copy that contains the latter six. I have to decide whether to remove all the bolded commentary. Avoid "wall of text" by inserting appropriate paragraph breaks, etc..
And since I'm doing it for you, Jeffrey, do you have any preference on the details? The text (as near as possible) to what passed peer review? New clarifications in brackets?

spin

The following two posts consist of all the material that Adam says makes up his paper on the significance of John. It lacks a third section header, which was never provided.

Perhaps we can now be done with the farce....