|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re: Skeptics being wrong about the Bible. The Bible skeptics errancy list | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi WJ,
I am familiar with this practice too as this type of tutoring is exactly what I do at on a Wednesday and Friday afternoons. Last semsester I tutored an Introduction to the Old Testament course, and this semester I am tutoring an Eastern Religions course, although I am doing this mostly for the experience as my High School job pays really well. In my experience, and yours, it is mostly first year courses that postgrads are asked to tutor, but I do know someone who has helped tutor advanced units. It is also my experience that to be permitted to study at a uni as a postgraduate, the applicant has to have an honours degree of upper second or better, although I hear there are possbile ways around this. I do agree with your conclusion that Ken's quality of discussion is not consistent with what I would expect from a graduate. I honestly mean this when I say that I have had essays from a few 12 year old children that are of better quality than anything Ken produced on the 'Jonah' thread. I am not saying this to be mean to Ken, it is just an observation. On the evidence available to us, I would say that Ken does not have any further or higher educational qualifications, but his tutoring may have been in a different context from the one we are familiar with. Maybe he tutored at Patriot University, I don't think it matters if you can string two words together or not to get a job there. As for twiddling our thumbs, I think it is time that Ken did start to support his assertions, it is becoming exceedingly boring to leave so many loose ends dangling. I do think that Ken brings up some interesting points that could be very enjoyable to debate. However, he doesn't focus on any particular part of an argument for very long at all. His thread on 'Biblical Archaeology' could be a terrific thread, I had a quick look at it and everything he has posted so far is wrong! The Old Testament and Syro-Palestinian archaeology are two major areas of my M.th dissertation and I think, on first impressions anyway, that everything Ken has mentioned so far is junk. The thing is, will it be of any benefit to Ken for me to take an hour or two to reply to each of his posts, will it be beneficial to me to do this? I personally don't think it will because until Ken learns to pick one or two details at a time for discussion, then it will be a waste of time to engage in any discussion with him. Having said this, I better at least reply to some of his 'biblical archaeology' misconceptions. Cheers. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
Dear Brian:
You continue to try to use the style over substance logical fallacy. I believe I have already addressed this. Secondly, I would point out that you are being quite hypocritical in this fallacious manner of discourse which is quite obviously shown at: http://EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent? -->EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent? I would also say that Brian fails to see my perspective in regards to providing more specificity regarding which particular skeptic made a charge against the Bible that was later overturned. I would ask what incentive is there for me to do so? Considering that I researched the Jonah piece and provided multiple pieces of corroborative evidence and completely refuted your fallacious argumentation and the string was closed before I could do more of the same, I see zero incentive. I would say the moderators in this Bible section of EVC Forum have demonstrated their commitment to intellectual freedom and no words they can offer as an afterthought will cause me to go out of my way to offer more specificity in this string. Until there are changes in this section of EVC Forum I guess Brian and others will have to at suspect that the Oxford Bible Commentary may be justified in taking a "chastened historical criticism" approach in their commentary. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Ken,
Due to your stated refusal to substantiate your claims, and your almost passive/aggressive dismissal of numerous requests to utilize forum features such as the reply to post arrow, I am now officially asking you to restrict your posting to the Free for All forum. This does not include starting NEW topics at this time. Any complaints concerning this can be discussed in one of your already existing threads in the Suggestions forum. Failure to abide by this decision can be grounds for suspension. added by edit - Thought I would add the "last straw" quote before it got changed in edit.
I would also say that Brian fails to see my perspective in regards to providing more specificity regarding which particular skeptic made a charge against the Bible that was later overturned. I would ask what incentive is there for me to do so? Considering that I researched the Jonah piece and provided multiple pieces of corroborative evidence and completely refuted your fallacious argumentation and the string was closed before I could do more of the same, I see zero incentive. I would say the moderators in this Bible section of EVC Forum have demonstrated their commitment to intellectual freedom and no words they can offer as an afterthought will cause me to go out of my way to offer more specificity in this string. Until there are changes in this section of EVC Forum I guess Brian and others will have to at suspect that the Oxford Bible Commentary may be justified in taking a "chastened historical criticism" approach in their commentary [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-03-2004] AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Oh mighty queen, I humbly beseech thee that thy unworthy servant Ken be allowed to continue to post in this thy regal thread if he actually presents the supporting citations and other evidence for any of the assertions that he has already posted here. No new assertions should be allowed, only provide the information as I detailed in my message #21 for any of his assertions that bible skeptics have been proven wrong. Banishing him from this thread makes an easy excuse for him.
We your eternal servants humbly pray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
WJ,
I do understand the wish to see something of value come from this thread. Ken already has four topics in the FFA, three topics in the Suggestions forum, one topic in the Links forum and three topics in the Bible: Acc and Iner. This does not count the two threads closed by AM and myself. I could move this thread to the FFA, giving Ken 5 outlets for his posting. Personally I feel the sheer number of threads he has started has already given him an excuse for his poor debating and posting style. Let me stew on this, and get input from the other mods about moving this thread. Shoot me a reminder by the end of the week and I'll make a decision. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Here's another thread which is awaiting Ken's return with one verifiable example of a case where a bible skeptic has been proven wrong and the bible proven right.
Come on Ken. Surely in all of those links which you have presented there is at least one case which has the details I listed in message #21, viz:
quote: Why do you choose to hide behind the anonymity of "critical scholars", "some historians" and "skeptics"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Bound Inactive Member |
Sorry if I'm being pedantic here, but Skepticism per se, cannot be errant. Skepticism embodies errancy itself, it says that we can't know ANYTHING. You've all heard the malevolent demon/evil scientist argument, before right? Descartes? The brain in a vat theory? Example: you are sitting at a desk, with the bible in front of you, and you're reading it. How do you know that the bible's even real? The malevolent demon could be tricking you. The evil scientist who could be anyone, could just be feeding the information into you're brain thats in a vat somewhere which could be anywhere. Notice I'm already going into metaphysics, but considering that the bible is media I don't even really need to go this far. THE BIBLE IS MEDIA. Someone says something, you can't test it, therefore it comes down to belief. Imagine what would happen if people accepted Mein Kampf as literal truth without skeptical guidance. There's no difference other than your belief in what that text means. But skepticism clearly states that belief or opinion ain't shit, if you'll forgive my profanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: All
I have found several specific examples of academics being wrong in regards to the Bible. I found them in "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" in their discussion of archaeology. I will be posting these in the next 20 days. TO: Mr. Bound I believe that skepticism is self refuting. If skeptics assert that you cannot really know something then how do they know you cannot know? It is also absurd. Skeptics do not know their legal names? Skeptics who enter post at this forum do not know they entering data into EVC Forum? I think the radical skeptics need to stop posing and come clean. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6523 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I believe that skepticism is self refuting. If skeptics assert that you cannot really know something then how do they know you cannot know? Maybe your confused as to what a skeptic is?
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Skeptic Skep"tic, Skeptical Skep"tic*al, a. Written also sceptic, sceptical. 1. Of or pertaining to a sceptic or skepticism; characterized by skepticism; hesitating to admit the certainly of doctrines or principles; doubting of everything. Skeptiesisim has nothing to do with the existential paradox. Descart and Socrates adressed those the best. Each comming up with their own version of: "I think, therefore I am." Skeptics basically say "Oh ya, prove it?". i.e. Biblical inerantists have to proove that their outlandish claims are true. After all, their holy text is error prone, and they aperantly belive in undead, all-powerfull, readeaming zombies. Is it so hard to belive that others may be somewhat skeptical? [This message has been edited by Yaro, 03-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Hi Ken,
I have a question into Admin concerning just where you are allowed to post. There is some question as to whether or not Admin lifted my restriction of you to the FFA when he lifted your suspension. I would greatly appreciate if you would hold on posting out of your FFA threads until this has been made clear. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I believe that skepticism is self refuting. If skeptics assert that you cannot really know something then how do they know you cannot know? This is a fairly typical misunderstanding of this point. The actual claim is that we have no access to absolute certain knowledge - this esentially comes down to the 'is it a dream?' or 'am I a brain in a vat?' questions. Logically, we cannot be absolutely certain that neither of these things is the case - practically, we assume they are because that is the only reasonable course of action. We cannot, of course, be certain that absolute certainity is impossible - all we know is that we don't know how to get at it if it is. Read some Kant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Bound Inactive Member |
No, skeptics assert that one can only know 'I think, therefore I am.' as Yaro rightfully pointed out. To claim that the Bible is inerrant, it would require showing it's entire content to be so perfectly true that everyone would know it as well as they know that they exist to know it in the first place. That's the real nonsense. History, language and science are tools that people try to use to prove the innerancy of the Bible yet these themselves are errant. For example, I ask you to prove to me that the Bible wasn't wriiten 25 years ago (before I was born). There's no way you can 100% show me this to be true, because I wasn't alive to see and everyone COULD be lying. Since you're incapable of doing that, the chance of you succeeding in showing it to be entirely inerrant is virtually nil. In fact, if you did manage it, you would be the first person to prove anything, ever. You would win the Nobel prize, and then you could also tell us whether a tree that falls in the woods makes a sound if no-one's there to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
I wanted to not leave dangling post strings and thus I wanted to offer a quick example of a specific skpetic being wrong about the Bible. I found some examples in the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict in their discussion of Bible archaeology.
Here is one example that McDowell mentions and it is mentioned at a website: We saw above that the critics who proposed this hypothesis said that Moses couldn't write. Julius Wellhausen wrote in 1885 that Israel certainly had its laws, only they were not fixed in writing.[15]and Hermann Schultz, in 1898 said, Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators (not writers), the time of which they treat is sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing.[16]Then in 1902, a French archaeological expedition under the direction of M. Jacques de Morgan found the law code of Hammurabi at the site of ancient Susa, to the east of Mesopotamia. The code, engraved in stone sometime between 1700 B.C. and 2000 B.C., contained 282 sections or paragraphs, and was found to contain many laws similar to the Mosaic law. Since then, archaeological discoveries have been made which prove that writing existed in Moses day and long before him. Here is a partial list including the fact that inscriptions have even been found at Mt. Sinai. In 1917 Alan Gardiner, noted British Egyptologist, made the first decipherment of the Proto-Semitic inscriptions found at Mt. Sinai...These inscriptions, written in a pictorial script by Canaanites before the middle of the second millennium (1500) B.C., prove that alphabetic writing existed before the time of Moses.[17] Starting in 1925, more than 4000 tablets, dating from 1500-1400 B.C., have been found in the town of Nuzi, near ancient Ninevah in Iraq.In 1929 tablets were found at Ugarit and Ras Shamra on the Syrian north coast. These tablets are from the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., the very age of Moses. The language corresponds closely to the Hebrew poetic language from the Torah-Old Testament, such as the Song of Miriam from Exodus 15:20, and the song of Deborah, found in Judges 5 (12th century B.C.). In 1933 excavations were started at Mari on the Middle Euphrates in Syria. Three years later thousands of cuneiform tablets were found which dated from 1700 B.C. In 1964 the ruins of Ebla were discovered in Northern Syria. By 1974, more than 17,000 clay tablets written in 2200 B.C. had been found. Finally, I myself, sat at the base of an Egyptian obelisk at the place de la Concorde while in Paris in 1961, the sides of which are covered with hieroglyphics from the time of Ramses II.As early as 1938, without the later finds, W. F. Albright, discussing the various writing systems that existed in the ancient Orient during pre-Mosaic patriarchal times, could write, In this connection it may be said that writing was well known in Palestine and Syria throughout the Patriarchal Age (Middle Bronze, 2100-1500 B.C.). No fewer than five scripts are known to have been in use: (1) Egyptian hieroglyphs, used for personal and place names by the Canaanites; (2) Accadian Cuneiform; (3) the hieroglyphiform syllabary of Phoenicia; (4) the linear alphabet of Sinai; and (5) the cuneiform alphabet of Ugarit which was discovered in 1929.[18]" taken from: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Campbell/s3c1.html Sincerely, Ken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
HI Ken,
Can we clarify something before we continue? Are you saying that in 1898 no one knew of any writings from the 3rd or 2nd millenium BCE? Is Schultz saying that there was no writing at all, or just that the Mosaic Law wasn't written? Are you also saying that before the finding of the Code of Hammurabi we did not have any texts dating from before Moses was supposed to have lived? Could you clarify if any, or all of the above are indeed what you are claiming? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Not that I have any objection to the content of Ken's most recent message in this topic, but I believe he is still restricted to certain "Free For All" forum topics.
I think Ken needs to work it out with AdminAsgara, if he is to be released from this restriction. I am against moving this topic to the "Free For All" forum. Ken brought this restrictions upon himself - Now he needs to live with them. Adminnemooseus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024