Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

chavos · 10-23-2003, 10:31 AM

looking at your link, Jynx...i have to say that it's hardly good scholarship. most of the "problems" of the text are discussed quite openly in any biblical studies class...but with out the spin, and including alternative theories, not just the ones most friendly to discrediting the tradition.

*They totally misrepresent the nature of "El" and "Elohim" as titles...
*They do not have the correct chronology of the J and E sources.
*They misrepresent the nature of prophets in hebrew society.
*They describe the events of Ezekial's life in a way that distorts his relationship with God.
*The standards of historical scholarship, such as the Negative Evidence Principle are NOT accepted by most in the historical community. It's a neat trick for shoving off burden of proof that totally ignore the general lack of records in that era.
*They distort the nature of Josephus's writings. It is not a "secular" source.
*They fail to present the documentary hypothesis of the Gospels correctly. There is a fundamental mistake as to the nature of Mark, Q and the other synoptics.
*There is a fundamentally different standard of evidence used when the author makes allegations, much looser than for Christian claims.
*The judgment confered on the Gospels is written to discredit, and does not adeqatuely deal with the potential and problems of such texts.
*The document errantly confers a Christology on to the Gospel of Matthew. At very least, this is a HIGHLY debatable fact.
*The author displays a lack of knowlege of translations, and their qualities. The only versions discussed are outdated. The reliable NSRV is not mentioned at all. This omission is so glaring as to make it almost certainly intentional.
*the author over literalizes, ignoring the use of poetic and metaphoric language. This is an error many fundamentalists make, and he feeds right in to it.

All in all, i say it's pretty well crap, and that's being generous. I'm not going to stand here and tell you everything in the bible is true, and that he's a heretic. Not everything in the bible is literally true...but it still has value as a sacred text. The story of the Isrealites, the prophets and of Christ all offer a compelling narative of the relation of humans to the divine...

10-23-2003, 10:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	looking at your link, Jynx...i have to say that it's hardly good scholarship. most of the "problems" of the text are discussed quite openly in any biblical studies class...but with out the spin, and including alternative theories, not just the ones most friendly to discrediting the tradition. They totally misrepresent the nature of "El" and "Elohim" as titles... They do not have the correct chronology of the J and E sources. They misrepresent the nature of prophets in hebrew society. They describe the events of Ezekial's life in a way that distorts his relationship with God. The standards of historical scholarship, such as the Negative Evidence Principle are NOT accepted by most in the historical community. It's a neat trick for shoving off burden of proof that totally ignore the general lack of records in that era. They distort the nature of Josephus's writings. It is not a "secular" source. They fail to present the documentary hypothesis of the Gospels correctly. There is a fundamental mistake as to the nature of Mark, Q and the other synoptics. There is a fundamentally different standard of evidence used when the author makes allegations, much looser than for Christian claims. The judgment confered on the Gospels is written to discredit, and does not adeqatuely deal with the potential and problems of such texts. The document errantly confers a Christology on to the Gospel of Matthew. At very least, this is a HIGHLY debatable fact. The author displays a lack of knowlege of translations, and their qualities. The only versions discussed are outdated. The reliable NSRV is not mentioned at all. This omission is so glaring as to make it almost certainly intentional. the author over literalizes, ignoring the use of poetic and metaphoric language. This is an error many fundamentalists make, and he feeds right in to it. All in all, i say it's pretty well crap, and that's being generous. I'm not going to stand here and tell you everything in the bible is true, and that he's a heretic. Not everything in the bible is literally true...but it still has value as a sacred text. The story of the Isrealites, the prophets and of Christ all offer a compelling narative of the relation of humans to the divine...