Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness
View Post
Really? It supposes a good authority behind it.
If I think an argument isn't good, even if it is by a scholar, I would reject it.
I look at things from how they argue it (eg Wallace) and see if the logic holds. If it doesn't, then I reject it. I look more at the arguments and how they are presented. Although I will say that the scholarly consensus is by far towards Markan Priority and Q and against Matthean priority, I don't think that my position has ever been represented in debate and I don't think its because the theory is silly (I think it at least explains the data)
On a different note, Where does Miller misrepresent data?
Were a gun put to my head, and were I then asked to evaluate Miller's honesty as an apologist, I could not in good conscience say that I felt he was anything but blatantly dishonest. As it is, I cannot tell if he is deliberately distorting the information from the sources he cites, or if he simply cannot accept the information that they present, or if he does not understand the information and thus grabs the "shiny bits" that sound like "good arguments" to him.
Why is that? I would think this is more the case regarding things like grammar, semantics etc.?
When it comes to QM, I (vaguely) understand that on the quantum scale, you cannot measure both the speed and the location of a quantum particle. I don't know why that is true, but somebody says it, so I have to just shrug and go on. QW, I say this with absolutely no insult to you, but you are even less qualified to discuss textual criticism than I am to discuss QM.
Comment