Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Make sure you invite DOC. No thread is complete without his unique insights.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)
- Thread starter phelix
- Start date
- Status
Make sure you invite DOC. No thread is complete without his unique insights.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If that's is the sort of thing you describe as a miracle then it's little wonder you're so impressed with the NT.
Is Jack and the Beanstalk a miracle as well, DOC? Rumpelstiltskin?
No, you started with something and worked your way back to having nothing.
If you'd never posted at all you'd be ahead of where you are now.
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,121
Oh by FSM's noodly appendages of awesomeness I'd forgotten about that gem. Almost sig worthy.
I don't think we ever saw the transcript that showed that did we? Mind you, even if we did see it the brutal truth is that DOC appears to be a logical fallacy generator.
I don't think we ever saw the transcript that showed that did we? Mind you, even if we did see it the brutal truth is that DOC appears to be a logical fallacy generator.
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
You haven't "shared" diddly or squat. All you've done is make a an reference to an undocumented yahoo group discussion and tell us to Google around for your arugments.
Either cite your sources, or shut up.
welshdean
Michael McDonald 1967 - 2021
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 5,882
Originally Posted by amb
All this squabbling is not answering the question whether the N/T writers told the truth."The burden of proof is with the claimant." So far there has not been a single scrap of evidence that the gospelers wrote the truth.
My 2500 posts in Part 1 and Part 2 of this thread say otherwise.
No DOC, no matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't so.
welshdean
Michael McDonald 1967 - 2021
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 5,882
If that's is the sort of thing you describe as a miracle then it's little wonder you're so impressed with the NT.Originally Posted by DOC
Then we have witnessed a miracle -- and that miracle is that I was able to post over 2500 posts in Part 1 and 2 of this Evidence thread without a single scrap of evidence.
Is Jack and the Beanstalk a miracle as well, DOC? Rumpelstiltskin?
No, you started with something and worked your way back to having nothing.Originally Posted by DOC
At least Jesus started with something like water (water into wine) or 5 loaves and 2 fishes (when he fed the 5000) when he performed his miracles, but if you are right then I started with nothing.
If you'd never posted at all you'd be ahead of where you are now.
I've checked 3 or 4 times and I can't seem to find the DOC post of which you quote. Either you're making things up to make him look silly or ...
... You don't think he's editing his posts, completely changing them in an attempt to hide his own over-rated self importance and delusions of grandeur again, do you?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
That would be gilding the lily, I think. Judging by the time stamps he must have edited the post while I was in the middle of responding.
Those are indeed his original words.
Maybe a great big finger came down out of the clouds and a deep, booming voice threatened him with the comfy chair if he didn't recant his blasphemy.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I've checked through my 'Evidence Provided by DOC for Anything, Ever" file and - believe it or not - no documentation (well, nothing at all, actually).
Certainly raises a red flag.
DOC, every one of your 2500 posts in these threads has been completely devoid of evidence supporting your contention that the NT writers told the truth.
So far, you've provided claims that they believed stuff, but no evidence that what they believed was the truth.
If you can see the difference between these two things, perhaps you could crack on with some evidence for the latter. Once again, your previous posts have been claims only for the former, so please don't waste time and bandwidth repeating your previous appeals to authority and consequence.
Since Ocaptain seems to have bravely fled, the floor is yours, DOC.
So far, you've provided claims that they believed stuff, but no evidence that what they believed was the truth.
If you can see the difference between these two things, perhaps you could crack on with some evidence for the latter. Once again, your previous posts have been claims only for the former, so please don't waste time and bandwidth repeating your previous appeals to authority and consequence.
Since Ocaptain seems to have bravely fled, the floor is yours, DOC.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
My 2 cents:
I don't think OCaptain Deserved the treatment he got here. The only mistake he made was responding poorly to being jumped on for asking a question.
I would hope he would start his new thread as I think the conversation could be quite interesting.
I would partially agree. I don't think that calling anyone "fundies" is respectful, in any case.
I would also enjoy a new thread, as I always learn stuff from those better informed on the subject.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,100
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,100
So instead of posting the supposed evidence you claim to have, you're going to run away in a huff?
And, just so you know, here are some of the comments I've culled from the Biblical Studies list on a recent debate regarding Redaction vs Q, and the challenges in forming reliable methodologies for determining an original context versus a later redaction.
from Stephanie Fisher at Nottingham University:
"I'm not quite sure what you think I said about redaction criticism and seem
to have understood I was dismissing redaction completely. I should also
remind you not just of British friends, but of our European colleagues,
Neirynck, Fleddermann, Lambrecht etc who still hang on to that silly idea of
Q. In fact Fleddermann published a great tome in 2005, so heavy I can
hardly lift it. It includes Fleddermann's own 'reconstruction' of the
'written Greek document' of 'Q'. However, outside America, where 'Q' does
unfortunately 'exist' it does only with those who are so-called
'specialists' in 'Q'. I suggest that their careers and publications have
been pretty much based on its existence so I would argue that they have
their own peculiar agendas to maintain the myth of its existence (and do
however convince some of their students as a couple of rotten doctoral
theses demonstrate), a bit like Ben Witherington not conceding error on the
Talpiot Tomb.
At the 2008 Oxford Synoptic Conference, I questioned the arguably 'leading'
'Q' scholar, and ended up suggesting to him "You don't REALLY believe in 'Q'
do you", and he ummed and erred and he blushed very hotly, but couldn't say
"Of course I do". I don't see how anyone could...
I already agreed that Ingrid was correct although and while Van Seters is
helpful and interesting particularly in relation to OT texts, I would treat
with caution. Evidence of redaction I suggest is individual and unique in
each case and subject to many variables. Arguments about characteristics
and models are arguably biased and erroneous and loaded with unconscious
presuppositions."
Next, an exchange between Jack Kilmon and Ms. Fisher again:
'Dear Jack,
Jack: "The non-Markan material in Matthew is the same as that in Luke".
Me: Some of it is but not all of it.
Jack: "ALL of it is derived from an Aramaic source."
Me: I've yet to see that one demonstrated. Some of it could be and some of it is not. There are plausible models to demonstrate a chaotic solution, such as Aramaic, Greek and oral multiple sources. This is more likely to reflect historical reality but a single written document squeezes in too much that does not fit and leaves too much material unexplained.
Jack: "If "Q" is silly and its proponents are fools, then just what IS it?"
Me: Q is simplistic hypothesis that does not reflect historical reality of tradition developments or writing techniques in any way. As Klopp himself concedes before seemingly forgetting and continuing to write a book based on the assumption of a mythical document, "Parsimony, however, is a virtue of explanatory logic; it is not a feature of historical or literary realities ... reflection on human experience should tell us that few events can be reduced to simple causes, and causal chains are rarely unilinear and uncomplicated by other influences."
It is a hypothesis based on the assumption that it exists and therefore all arguments are circular. I am still writing up a thesis in an attempt to demonstrate a chaotic model but in the meantime you could (re)read Maurice Casey's 'Aramaic Approach to Q' and 'Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel'. I have since convinced Casey that Luke knew (but didn't probably like very much) Matthew's gospel. Naturally I don't assume to reconstruct actual sources, I merely attempt to demonstrate plausible sources for a chaotic model with socially historical plausibility.'
And this one from Niels Peter Lemche:
"it is a matter of understanding the functions of scribes in ancient times. Van Seters did some important job here. But it is all important to understand the conditions, practices. They wrote, and rewrote, and stole and borrowed, there were no rules --- no copyright. "Q" evaporates when confronted with the possibilities contained within the concept of rewritten Bible.
However, living in a different time when redaction is spelled with capitals: REDACTION, and conducted by REDACTORS -- a strange animal in an ancient context -- scholars of the modern age recreated a process of redaction according to the standards of their own time.
If only people would start with themselves and analyze themselves as the products of a development that began in the Renaissance with the development of the European person (Locke, Hume, Descartes will be good to start with), then they might understand a little better how different we really are."
And, then, this from Frank Clancy, Kitchener, Ontario:
"My thanks to those who tried to help me on the question of redactions. Nevertheless, there are some major problems which I must consider.
Many times we see a scholar suggest a particular text is the work of a redactor and any number of scholars who claim it was part of the original. In a fascinating book, Mark O'Brien introduced many redactions and redactors as he examined the books of Kings, Samuel etc. in detail. I have to admit, many times I found his reasoning complicated - a bit too much for me.
I am not qualified to comment on Exodus but the suggestion that breaks or interruptions in the story indicate redaction is not a strong argument. We may be looking at texts written by someone who was a bad writer, or who had a different style of writing or who may have forgotten to include information and added that information instead of rewriting his texts. We have that problem in Joshua where we have two references to the two and a half tribes from the Transjordan - some scholars suggest one or both were added by a redactor (because they interrupt the flow of the story and the language reminds of texts in Deut. or Numbers) while others accept these references as original.
Nevertheless, we do see evidence of redaction. Anyone who has looked at the David and Goliath story (or Jeremiah) in MT and LXX texts will recognize that redaction occurred. When we look at the chronological information in Genesis in the MT, LXX and the Samaritan texts will recognize that redaction occurred. In these cases, the question is not about redaction but about which (if any) is original. In both cases we have something concrete- a pattern of distinctions - numbers, texts etc. It seems to me that a pattern of distinctions is a major indication of redaction(s)- probably the most important indicator. However, it does not solve the problem about which (if any) text was the original.
Another indicator may be the possibility of a contradiction in a text. I we read the book "The Scarlet Pimpernel" where the action takes place in England and France, and we find two pages and only two pages which talk about Robespierre and the Reign of Terror ruling China, we have to assume someone altered the story at this point. Either the original story took place in China or these two pages were changed by someone for some particular reason. However, care would have to be taken to make certain we are not dealing with a simple scribal error where, for a simple example, 40 years is changed to 4 years.
But beyond that I am stuck. I cannot find any other example which whould provide some measure of security that we are dealing with redaction(s). We cannot rely on different languages, interruptions etc. - at least not with confidence."
Enjoy the read. I won't be responding to questions. For my own reputation on the boards here, I felt the need to let everyone know I wasn't blowing smoke.
from Stephanie Fisher at Nottingham University:
"I'm not quite sure what you think I said about redaction criticism and seem
to have understood I was dismissing redaction completely. I should also
remind you not just of British friends, but of our European colleagues,
Neirynck, Fleddermann, Lambrecht etc who still hang on to that silly idea of
Q. In fact Fleddermann published a great tome in 2005, so heavy I can
hardly lift it. It includes Fleddermann's own 'reconstruction' of the
'written Greek document' of 'Q'. However, outside America, where 'Q' does
unfortunately 'exist' it does only with those who are so-called
'specialists' in 'Q'. I suggest that their careers and publications have
been pretty much based on its existence so I would argue that they have
their own peculiar agendas to maintain the myth of its existence (and do
however convince some of their students as a couple of rotten doctoral
theses demonstrate), a bit like Ben Witherington not conceding error on the
Talpiot Tomb.
At the 2008 Oxford Synoptic Conference, I questioned the arguably 'leading'
'Q' scholar, and ended up suggesting to him "You don't REALLY believe in 'Q'
do you", and he ummed and erred and he blushed very hotly, but couldn't say
"Of course I do". I don't see how anyone could...
I already agreed that Ingrid was correct although and while Van Seters is
helpful and interesting particularly in relation to OT texts, I would treat
with caution. Evidence of redaction I suggest is individual and unique in
each case and subject to many variables. Arguments about characteristics
and models are arguably biased and erroneous and loaded with unconscious
presuppositions."
Next, an exchange between Jack Kilmon and Ms. Fisher again:
'Dear Jack,
Jack: "The non-Markan material in Matthew is the same as that in Luke".
Me: Some of it is but not all of it.
Jack: "ALL of it is derived from an Aramaic source."
Me: I've yet to see that one demonstrated. Some of it could be and some of it is not. There are plausible models to demonstrate a chaotic solution, such as Aramaic, Greek and oral multiple sources. This is more likely to reflect historical reality but a single written document squeezes in too much that does not fit and leaves too much material unexplained.
Jack: "If "Q" is silly and its proponents are fools, then just what IS it?"
Me: Q is simplistic hypothesis that does not reflect historical reality of tradition developments or writing techniques in any way. As Klopp himself concedes before seemingly forgetting and continuing to write a book based on the assumption of a mythical document, "Parsimony, however, is a virtue of explanatory logic; it is not a feature of historical or literary realities ... reflection on human experience should tell us that few events can be reduced to simple causes, and causal chains are rarely unilinear and uncomplicated by other influences."
It is a hypothesis based on the assumption that it exists and therefore all arguments are circular. I am still writing up a thesis in an attempt to demonstrate a chaotic model but in the meantime you could (re)read Maurice Casey's 'Aramaic Approach to Q' and 'Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel'. I have since convinced Casey that Luke knew (but didn't probably like very much) Matthew's gospel. Naturally I don't assume to reconstruct actual sources, I merely attempt to demonstrate plausible sources for a chaotic model with socially historical plausibility.'
And this one from Niels Peter Lemche:
"it is a matter of understanding the functions of scribes in ancient times. Van Seters did some important job here. But it is all important to understand the conditions, practices. They wrote, and rewrote, and stole and borrowed, there were no rules --- no copyright. "Q" evaporates when confronted with the possibilities contained within the concept of rewritten Bible.
However, living in a different time when redaction is spelled with capitals: REDACTION, and conducted by REDACTORS -- a strange animal in an ancient context -- scholars of the modern age recreated a process of redaction according to the standards of their own time.
If only people would start with themselves and analyze themselves as the products of a development that began in the Renaissance with the development of the European person (Locke, Hume, Descartes will be good to start with), then they might understand a little better how different we really are."
And, then, this from Frank Clancy, Kitchener, Ontario:
"My thanks to those who tried to help me on the question of redactions. Nevertheless, there are some major problems which I must consider.
Many times we see a scholar suggest a particular text is the work of a redactor and any number of scholars who claim it was part of the original. In a fascinating book, Mark O'Brien introduced many redactions and redactors as he examined the books of Kings, Samuel etc. in detail. I have to admit, many times I found his reasoning complicated - a bit too much for me.
I am not qualified to comment on Exodus but the suggestion that breaks or interruptions in the story indicate redaction is not a strong argument. We may be looking at texts written by someone who was a bad writer, or who had a different style of writing or who may have forgotten to include information and added that information instead of rewriting his texts. We have that problem in Joshua where we have two references to the two and a half tribes from the Transjordan - some scholars suggest one or both were added by a redactor (because they interrupt the flow of the story and the language reminds of texts in Deut. or Numbers) while others accept these references as original.
Nevertheless, we do see evidence of redaction. Anyone who has looked at the David and Goliath story (or Jeremiah) in MT and LXX texts will recognize that redaction occurred. When we look at the chronological information in Genesis in the MT, LXX and the Samaritan texts will recognize that redaction occurred. In these cases, the question is not about redaction but about which (if any) is original. In both cases we have something concrete- a pattern of distinctions - numbers, texts etc. It seems to me that a pattern of distinctions is a major indication of redaction(s)- probably the most important indicator. However, it does not solve the problem about which (if any) text was the original.
Another indicator may be the possibility of a contradiction in a text. I we read the book "The Scarlet Pimpernel" where the action takes place in England and France, and we find two pages and only two pages which talk about Robespierre and the Reign of Terror ruling China, we have to assume someone altered the story at this point. Either the original story took place in China or these two pages were changed by someone for some particular reason. However, care would have to be taken to make certain we are not dealing with a simple scribal error where, for a simple example, 40 years is changed to 4 years.
But beyond that I am stuck. I cannot find any other example which whould provide some measure of security that we are dealing with redaction(s). We cannot rely on different languages, interruptions etc. - at least not with confidence."
Enjoy the read. I won't be responding to questions. For my own reputation on the boards here, I felt the need to let everyone know I wasn't blowing smoke.
Last edited:
OCaptain, since you don't intend to respond to questions, I imagine it is useless to enquire whether you are presenting any of that as evidence for or against the contention that the NT writers told the truth?
I apologise for my snarkiness earlier; I thought you had fled the thread, and since you have returned I admit I was mistaken.
I apologise for my snarkiness earlier; I thought you had fled the thread, and since you have returned I admit I was mistaken.
Another wide sweeping generalization of a 21,000 post thread by people who can't just let the posts speak for themselves. Your statement is completely false. I have presented plenty of evidence that what they believed was true in my 2500+ posts. Do you want me to present some of it for the umpteenth time?
In addition to being one of those people in here who make wide sweeping generalizations concerning the thread, I think you are one of those (in here) who just can't seem to grasp the difference between the word "evidence" and the word "proof".
Last edited:
- Status