I am going to bed now, I may be some time. Maybe more than ten hours.
Your answer does not deal with what I’m getting at. I am not denying that there can be degrees of accuracy. I will try to make myself clear one last time.
If you ask me, “When did you stop beating your wife?” does not the very form of the question imply that you believe I have been beating my wife? (It does not prove that I actually have been beating my wife, but it does imply that you believe so.)
If you ask me, “Is the portrait of Richard the Lionheart in the Error Flynn movie accurate?” does not the very form of the question imply that you believe that such a person as Richard the Lionheart existed? (I am not saying that the form of the question proves that Richard the Lionheart actually existed, but only that you believe that he existed.)
Now, following the same pattern: If you ask me, “Is the portrait of Socrates given in Plato’s dialogues accurate?” does not the very form of the question imply that you believe that a real Socrates existed, and that Plato’s degree of accuracy is to be measured by how closely it corresponds with the truth about that real Socrates? (I am not saying the form of the question proves that Socrates really existed. I am saying that it implies that you are supposing that Socrates really existed.)
Again, following the same pattern: If you ask me, “Are the portraits of Jesus found in the Gospels accurate?” does not the very form of the question imply that you believe there was a person called Jesus, such that we can speak of “accurate” vs. “inaccurate” representations of him? (I am not saying that the form of the question proves that Jesus really existed, but only that the form of the question implies that you think he existed.)
Now, contrast this with someone who holds the view that Jesus never existed, and that the Gospels are myths, fiction, fabrications, whatever, invented for some religious, political, etc. purpose. Such a person would never ask, “Is the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels accurate?” He would not use the word “accurate”, because that implies a comparison between the Jesus of the Gospels and the “real, historical” Jesus, and the person who holds to the view that the Gospels are entirely mythical denies, ex hypothesi, that there ever was a historical Jesus to whose life the Gospel accounts could be compared. For such a person, “accuracy” has nothing to do with the matter. [this paragraph edited by author for prose clarity]
To repeat my earlier example, to ask, “Has the author of Harry Potter accurately represented Voldemort?” would be senseless. So also would “Has Jules Verne accurately represented Captain Nemo.” Accuracy" is an irrelevant category for dealing with wholly fabricated characters.
Does my point now make sense to you?
Of course, one could combine two questions involving very different perspectives on Jesus’s historicity, as follows:
“We might question whether the person Jesus ever existed, or, if he existed, whether the Gospels have accurately represented his life and sayings.”
Such a sentence is perfectly intelligible. I’ve simply been pleading for the clear distinction between these two very different questions. And I think you have consistently been misinterpreting me as trying to prove that Jesus existed.
Do you now agree with me that these two questions – (i) whether Jesus existed, and (ii) whether, supposing he existed, he was as the Gospels portray him, are two different questions, and that conflating them can lead to confusion?
If that was not implicit in your statements, what was the point?
We have no data either way.
Well, the academics here who use their real names write nothing like you do. For starters, they rarely refer to their training, are much more modest, and use humor much more often.
2 Likes
I don’t think we’ve really begun in that issue. Anyway, proof is for mathematicians.
Right, so why does he raise questions about my education which can’t be settled? Why doesn’t he just respond to my arguments, instead of accusing me of never having attended university at all? Note that when he said at the beginning he had taken some undergraduate courses in Greek and religion, I did not then question the accuracy of his biographical account, but simply showed that his statements about Greek and religion were wrong, despite having taken such courses. He, on the other hand, was not content to dispute my contents, but felt compelled to say, in effect, that I was lying about my education. Since I was not lying, I told him so. And that’s as far as such discussions can get when pseudonyms are being used.
In any case, we have here @AllenWitmerMiller, using his real name, who is trained in Greek and Hebrew languages (and I believe played a key role in developing some of the earliest original-language Bible software, but he can correct me if I’m wrong, and give us a thumbnail academic biography of himself, if he likes), who clearly has the same opinion of the quality of scholarship of Boris that I have. We also have deuteroKJ, who says he is a Hebrew/Bible professor, and whose claim no one, including you, has challenged, who has the same opinion. So even if I were lying about my background, which I’m not, I obviously think and argue in the same way that trained scholars in the field think and argue.
They’re almost all trained exclusively in science, and primarily in the life sciences. Obviously they are not going to write the way a scholar of religion, philosophy, ancient history, etc. writes. You yourself have pointed out many times how different is the way biologists get at things than Humanities scholars. In any case, my writing, though reflecting my own personal style, is in strictly academic discussions close in general style to that of other Biblical scholars, historians, comparative religion scholars, etc. That Badenoff has not encountered this writing style before suggests that he has not done much reading in scholarship in these fields. And as I already pointed out, whatever my style supposedly proves, in contents my arguments are like those of two other posters here whom everyone seems to accept as bona fide Biblical scholars, and in the end, Badenoff has to meet those arguments, whether I studied at universities for 15 years or none. He has failed to do so.
Which humor quite often contains a streak of sarcasm or snideness, and very little human warmth.
Are you going to respond to the main line of argument in my post, or not?
(I spent about half an hour crafting it, taking great pains to deal with your earlier objections, so if you’re not going to give me even five minutes of your time in a reply, I’ll be sure not to respond to you in the future. On the other hand, if you are waiting until tomorrow to give a fuller reply, that’s fine with me.)
More to the point, why are you replying?
It gets you more riled up, obviously.
Indeed. But he isn’t compelled to expound upon his training.
Who also isn’t compelled to expound upon his training.
No, you definitely do not argue in the way they do.
The context was obviously those trained in the humanities here.
No.
Or that he’s encountered more friendly scholars than you.
I couldn’t disagree more. Allan in particular is an extremely funny and warm guy.
1 Like
Exactly. That’s the kind of puerile motive which operates so often on websites like this. A desire for showdown driven by testosterone rather than thought.
No, but if Boris said that he had no such training, he would be quite within his rights to say, “Yes, I have.”
Ditto.
You’re not competent to judge. Your postings show virtually no familiarity with religion scholarship. I disregard your “No” as uninformed.
If his complaint is that I’m not “friendly” enough, he might ask himself whether a group of Christians who have been told by him in thundering terms that their religion is BS, a pack of lies, destructive of humanity, etc., and that they “don’t give a rip about the unborn”, should be expected to have “friendly” feelings toward him. Perhaps if he showed more “friendliness” in the way he offered his disagreements, he would get the same back in return. (The same could be said of 90% of your own posts, which on every site you’ve ever posted on, contain a great deal of “edge” and nothing like a friendly or even a collegial tone.)
I said “often”, not “always”. And the sarcastic and snide streak I spoke of is most often found in the “humor” of those trained on the life sciences side of the campus. On the other hand, Allan (if you mean Allen with an e Witmer Miller) does indeed project warmth and humanity. Some of the biologists here would do well to follow his example.
It is not only harsh and wrong, it is a violation of Peaceful Science rules of peaceful discourse. It is quite insulting to call anyone—especially university professors and lecturers in Biblical languages— a mere “pretender” or “faker”. The fact that the insult was posted in Greek makes it easier for the average reader to miss but it is no less inappropriate, unnecessary, and rude.
Because it is an “introduction” thread and classified as a “Side Conversation”, more leeway has been granted on this thread—but I’ll ask fellow moderator @Dan_Eastwood for his view on this breach of etiquette.
Yes, I was an early pioneer. My academic background is broad but not particularly impressive (which I will blame on the health impairments which derailed me in my prime and still neurologically impairs me a great deal.) I was first a professor of computer science at a secular university and later became a research professor at various graduate schools and seminaries. I retired long ago but I defer to scholars like DeuteroKJ on what is happening nowadays in Hebrew OT scholarship and the like (just as I would look to Eddie on matters such as philosophy as well as church history, of which I only had two semesters.). In any case, it is clear that @Eddie , DeuteroKJ and I recognize poorly-conducted trolling when we see it.
What saddens me more is that @Boris_Badenoff has not taken advantage of what PS has to offer as a learning resource. We are all over the spectrum in terms of beliefs, academic fields, interests, and types of expertise but this is a forum with a very deep “bench” of accomplished scientists, scholars, technicians, teachers et al. I don’t have to agree with everyone in order to learn from them. (And learning is why I come here!) Constantly telling those with years of experience and advanced knowledge of an academic field that they are all wrong—and are allegedly all wrong because of all sorts of nefarious motivations objectives—well, it gets old rather quickly. It’s certainly not a great way to present one’s ideas. It’s also rather silly. (It would take far more medication that I am currently prescribed in order to show the same level of patience several of the participants here have extended to Boris.)
4 Likes
Boris would be necessarily be considered a neighbor in the Biblical sense, as non-Christians are explicitly included.
Luke 10:
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
…
36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”
37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.”
In our defense, we are dealing with people who, for example, argue for months that calling a ribozyme a protein is a minor error without knowing that ribozymes (the name is a tipoff) are RNAs. We’re also dealing with people who don’t seem to be able to perform the simplest literature searches and think that biology is about debates instead of empiricism.
2 Likes
OK, OK, I concede the point. His arguments are not all repetitive and stale. Some of them are new and fresh – and also manifestly wrong.
A attended a private Christian Liberal Arts college affiliated with the Lutheran Church. I had one semester of Biology, Evolutionary Biology. Our professor was a Christian. There was no faith statement of any kind and I highly doubt any Christian school that teaches real science has such a thing. Show us one. They teach evolution at Wheaton College and it doesn’t get much more conservative than that. There was no discussion about the validity of Evolutionary Theory. No mention of Charles Darwin either. Evolution isn’t something that is believed or disbelieved. You either understand it or you don’t. You definitely do not. Students who major in Biology do so to make the world a better place with their knowledge by going into medicine, agriculture, fishery management, animal behavior, Ecology, plant biology, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology or one of many other fields. You don’t know why evolution is taught or even what the knowledge of the subject is used for. Hint: it isn’t used by atheists to get people to stop believing in God. People who believe in God use it and teach it every day. It’s not at all surprising that you don’t have a clue about the educational institutions raised by that culture.
I am misleading readers here? Oh that’s just rich coming from you.
I set a trap and you stepped right in it. The Greek word for “he pretends” is not what is harsh about what I said Mr. Greek Professor. It’s the second part: “He’s (an) enemy of the truth” is I’m pretty sure what AlanFox was talking about. You can’t read a word of Koine Greek and you know it. And the great thing about this is now everybody else knows it too. Why do I keep catching you in factual error after factual error? And not just little slips, but major falsehoods? Don’t you do any research before you write? This is a rough crowd and I doubt they’re going to let you live this one down.
I would not say that Boris has showed any “mercy” to those with Christian faith. His posts appear to be an all-out attack on their most deeply held personal beliefs, and even their moral motives. (Of particular Christians whom he has never even met, he says, “They don’t give a rip about the unborn.” Not neighborly language, if you ask me.)
Because you constantly harp on your credentials.
5 Likes
Your examples are both from the “moderate to liberal” side of the Bible-based Christianity spectrum. It’s clear you have no familiarity with schools from the conservative side.
Your original statement was [emphasis added]:
I’m going to hold you to that exact wording, because it was that wording that I was responding to.
Here is a Christian university that teaches “life sciences”, and here is part of its statement of faith:
“The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth. Human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God, as either biologically male or female from the womb.”
See What We Believe | Liberty University's Mission and Values.
For the presence of teaching in life sciences at Liberty, see:
Now, here’s Biola University, with its BS in Biological Science program:
And here’s part of the Biola Statement of faith pertaining to origins:
"The existence of the world cannot be explained adequately apart from the intelligent exercise of God’s supernatural power.
“God created the natural world and called it “good,” and after he created male and female he declared his creation “very good.” The man, Adam, was formed by the LORD God from the dust of the ground and not from living ancestors, and God breathed into him the breath of life so that Adam became a living being. The woman, Eve, was created from Adam’s side with both made in the image of God.”
Regarding Wheaton, which is more liberal than either of the two colleges just named, here is Wheaton’s statement on origins:
Listen to the video at about 1:20 ff. Man is a distinct special creation and “the entire human race” is descended from Adam and Eve.
I could multiply examples endlessly. Clearly, you wrote without doing any research into Christian colleges. Are you academically honest enough to admit that you made an erroneous statement?
Read the comments of Allen Witmer Miller, please. He isolates the offensive term correctly. Your calling me “an enemy of the truth” didn’t bother me at all. I’m used to that kind of polemics on sites like these. But the other word was offensive because it impugned my honesty. Allen Miller rightly called you on this.
The parrot response. A childish debating tactic practiced only by schoolchildren in the playground.
How would you respond if someone with only a BS in biology, who in your view made numerous and major errors in biological matters, repeatedly told you (in both English and Greek) that you were lying when you claimed to have Ph.D. in Systematics (or whatever your Ph.D. is in), that you didn’t talk at all the way real biologists talk, and and that you probably hadn’t been to college or even finished high school? Perhaps I can apply that to the situation where a manifestly poor undergraduate student in religion and Greek says things that I and all experienced scholars in the area know to be dead wrong, and then, when challenged with both factual evidence and theoretical arguments, resorts to saying that I don’t know Greek, have no training, don’t talk the way academics in religion talk, haven’t been to high school, etc.
Perhaps we could improve the tone here by turning away from our conflicting theories about the Bible and getting to know each other personally. How is it that you, by your own description raised as a secular Jew, ended up choosing to go to a private Lutheran college for your undergrad education? Luther was not exactly famous for a generous attitude toward Jews, so that’s the last place I would have thought someone with your background would have gone. Did you have a Christian phase in your life, before your current atheist phase, that led you to study in a Christian setting?
And miss a good round of Brockian Ultracricket?
But you were right, I should have closed it rather than letting it sink lower. I’m an optimist and always hope that things will get better. On rare occasions I am rewarded. 
If anyone has positive and/or constructive comments that really must be added, I will consider reopening the thread.
/fnord