Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[Sparko]

I'm no scholar

captain-obvious.jpg

[Tassman]

The bolded appears to be a direct, unattributed quote from here: http://mythikismos.gr/?cat=4

Well, you're wrong as usual.

just after the section break.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

A shining example of intellectual honesty and rigour, Tassman.

My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

[Tassman]

Sailhammer's point rests on the meaning of the Hebrew, something which you very obviously want to avoid discussing, because you have no idea.

unsubstantiated premise

[Tassman]

Yeah, but at least we actually engage with the arguments instead of simply attacking the source as non-credible.

Why engage in an argument if the premise of the argument is demonstrably false? We know that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives is wrong, so any argument based on this interpretation will be wrong. All that is left is to view these narratives as poetry or allegory.

[Sparko]

Well, you're wrong as usual.



My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

So you admit you plagiarized the words but not from Carrier?



You know plagiarism is against our rules right? If it were more than a few words you would probably have gotten dinged.

[MaxVel]

unsubstantiated premise

You're an ass. You' re still proving my point. Sailhammer's argument was about what precisely the text means to say, with reference to the Hebrew. Your moaning about inerrancy is a red herring. You might as well argue that noone can know the actual intended meaning of a passage in the Koran if they are a Muslim.

Show us why what he said is wrong, with quotes and counter arguments about the points he actually makes. Bet you can't. I'm already up 1-0.

[MaxVel]

Well, you're wrong as usual.



My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

What a goose!

Tassman: Your Honour, I'm not guilty of breaking the speed limit as I was going 25 over it, not 30 like the officer said.

Judge: Thanks for admitting you broke the law. Case closed, the verdict is guilty.

[Tassman]

You're an ass. You' re still proving my point. Sailhammer's argument was about what precisely the text means to say, with reference to the Hebrew. Your moaning about inerrancy is a red herring. You might as well argue that noone can know the actual intended meaning of a passage in the Koran if they are a Muslim.

really arguing that say, Adam and Eve are merely allegorical figures etc, etc etc?

Show us why what he said is wrong, with quotes and counter arguments about the points he actually makes. Bet you can't. I'm already up 1-0.

Sigh! Vintage MaxVel!

[Adrift]

[I] arguing that say, Adam and Eve are merely allegorical figures etc, etc etc?

Huh? What are you talking about? John Sailhamer didn't suggest a literal seven day creation narrative. I mean, that's the whole reason I brought him up to OBP all the way back in post #68. I figured you knew that, and that's why you decided to jump in with your two cents. What have you been arguing about this whole time?

[Tassman]

Huh? What are you talking about? John Sailhamer didn't suggest a literal seven day creation narrative. I mean, that's the whole reason I brought him up to OBP all the way back in post #68. I figured you knew that, and that's why you decided to jump in with your two cents. What have you been arguing about this whole time?

[psstein]

More and more Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Jesus is mythological historocity. I'm no scholar, and I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.

Name them. I don't mean some clown with a blog. I mean scholars with PhDs in relevant fields (Classics, NT, Early Christianity, Ancient History).

[tabibito]

More and more scholars are coming up with strange stories that do no more than give atheists less and less to disbelieve.

And that's a paraphrase of what one scholar said.

[JimL]

Name them. I don't mean some clown with a blog. I mean scholars with PhDs in relevant fields (Classics, NT, Early Christianity, Ancient History).

How about we start with Joseph Campbell. Ever hear of him?

[tabibito]

[JimL]

Yes, there are scholars who disagree and criticize each others work. Very good!