Curious what theologians throughout history made of Genesis 4

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

The core of your accusation was that I sided with scholars whose conclusions about the authorship of Hebrews I liked ; you were implying (as you have dozens of time here and on BioLogos) that I don’t make up my mind about such questions based on textual evidence, but based on whether I find particular conclusions congenial.

Actually this is what I said.

@Jonathan_Burke

I simply noted that you choose to agree with some Bible scholars in the majority, and disagree with others. This is exactly the same thing you do with science.

And it’s not a surprise when the scholars you side with, are the scholars who hold the same view as you do.

@Eddie

The context of my remarks implied that they could be.

Oh so now you’ve downgraded your previous claim to “implied”.

@Eddie

Failing to justify it as far as you are concerned – but you have no advanced degrees in theology, biology, climatology, or any of the other subjects you regard yourself as an expert on – so your opinion is simply off my radar.

Firstly I don’t need any such degrees to know whether or not you’ve justified it. Secondly I never regard myself as an expert on any scholarly field, and nor do I ever represent myself as one. I have corrected you on this repeatedly. This was the most recent occasion.

@Jonathan_Burke

On the contrary, unlike you I repeatedly identify the fact that I am not a expert, and do not claim to be “an oracle on theology and Biblical scholarship”.

The fact that you keep repeating this falsehood, even after being corrected repeatedly, shows that you’re simply dishonest.

@Eddie

(In fact, the only subject regarding which you don’t pontificate as vastly learned is “Classics” – the subject your Arts degree was actually in! Very strange.)

I don’t claim to be vastly learned on any subject, especially not Classics. A bachelor degree doesn’t make someone “vastly learned” on a subject.

@Eddie

Says the guy who rejects the plain and evident meaning of the demon-possession stories in the Gospels, precisely because they disagree with the dogmas of Christadelphian theology!

Unlike you, I honestly acknowledge my theological biases. I am extremely biased against the “traditional” reading (not “plain and evident meaning”, but thanks for self-identifying as a fundamentalist), of demon possession in the gospels, due to my theological background.

But that’s precisely why I have made great efforts to see if my personal view is exegetically justifiable, and of course it has not been difficult to find scholarship which supports my view. Additionally, I have taken the step of writing up my own arguments for my own view, and submitting them to peer review. The result thus far has been acknowledgement of the scholarly merit of one of my papers, and its publication in a peer reviewed and refereed journal. This is what intellectual honesty looks like.

@Eddie

And, by the same token, flawed to the extent that the process that has formed it is flawed.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. Ken Ham would be proud. You have totally avoided the real issue. The consensus is built on the strength of the process, not its flaws. The consensus has been formed through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification.

Then you come along, an autodidact with no relevant expertise, and say “I disagree with your science, because of my theology”, and you fly into a screaming rage when people don’t take you seriously.