The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Monday, March 23, 2009

Loftus "SLAM DUNKS" William Lane Craig?

For those people that don't know, or haven't been around the neighborhood of Loftus enough, Dr. William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist with a doctorate in philosophy and other related subjects. WLC is related to Loftus in that he is now his former mentor as self-admitted here: I have the near equivalent of a Ph.D. in the Philosophy or Religion/Apologetics (three master's degrees and Ph.D. studies). I majored under William Lane Craig and earned a Th.M. degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985.

For the few years I've gotten to know John, I've learned that he's very egotized when it comes to this simple fact about his personal history. I think his intention behind making the matter publically known is self-explanatory: William Lane Craig is an apologist for Christianity, and John is an apostate for Christianity. Two polar opposites in the same basket: WLC the teacher, and Johnny Appleseed the student. Put two and two together, you get a student who somehow manages to surpass the teacher! Wow, that's credibility!

Another fundamental difference between Craig and Loftus is that Craig has authored a countless number of books about different subjects all correlating to what Loftus argues against in his blog. John, on the other hand, has authored......err....um.....one single book? If you search "John W. Loftus" on Amazon.com, you'll be suprised if you come up with little more than a handful of books by John, all essentially under the same exact title, or at least, all about the same exact topic, yet refined here and there (depending on book copy). You see, John has this obsession of his that his books needs constant perfecting...over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Certain prior versions to John's contemporary update of his book may be sold for three times the price you would get for a new copy. Quite honestly, I'm not sure if John keeps good enough track of his book versions from time to time, as he often updates his cumulative text as much as the Apple Company comes up with some new fancy edition of what was once known simply as "The iPod."

Most TWebbers are by necessity, Christian. They spend a great deal more time than I ever would involved in forums that pertain to Dr. Craig and his works, or any other popular apologist. Apparently, as pointed out by TWebber Pumbelo, John's been looking for other outlets in which to avoid "the sewer" he frequents on occassion (I guess, for a momentary time period in his life, John aspires to develop consistency). John took recent events in academia in which there was a debate between Dr. Craig and the recent doctorate-holder, Richard Carrier. See the comments for yourself and judge whether or not John's statements to be made are full of double standards and pretentious ego:

I didn't think Carrier did badly although I do question why he focused on that which he did.

Still, even if Dr. Craig won this debate as some have said, what does that show? Nothing that I can tell, at least not to me. Craig is a formidable debater having started out by being on a High School debate team. And Craig is very knowledgeable on these issues having written or contributed to many books on these topics. One would guess there isn't anything an opponent could say that Craig hasn't already considered before. And given his huge advantage as a skilled debater his opponents don't have much of a chance to win.

But Craig is wrong. Jesus did not rise up from the dead. Craig is merely giving answers to beliefs he adopted in his teenage years for less than intelligent reasons. Dead people do not rise up from the grave. They can't. Such a thing is fairy tale wishful thinking unbecoming of what best represents scholarship. He has a presumption in favor of that which he seeks to defend. He marshalls together all of the confirming evidence based upon conjecture after conjecture, and he discounts all of the disconfirming evidence. I'm not saying this is intellectual dishonesty, but if anyone is actually persuaded by his historical case then I have a piece of property on Mars I want to sell him. Such a person is deluded.

There can be no historical confirmation of such an event that would ever persuade an intellectually honest person. One must first be able to cross over Lessing's Broad Ugly Ditch, which cannot be done with historical evidence. Hence Craig's case is doomed. He even admitted so in a Q & A about Lessing's ditch. So the rest is a shell game, a charade, a sham. He's like an emperor with no clothes on smiling at the crowds as he parades down the streets where everyone pretends not to notice he's naked. He is naked. I can see this plain as day, and it's very embarrassing.

Debate skills don't prove anything to me. Even having the knowledge he has doesn't prove anything to me. People can have a great deal of knowledge more than I do on a topic and be dead wrong about their conclusions. That describes Craig. He's a deluded man--a brainwashed man from his youth. A likeable man, no doubt, for I like him a great deal and consider him a friend. But he desperately needs an intervention soon.

Harsh words for a former college mentor. Indeed, extremely harsh...and very pretentious. My feelings on John's intention by parading himself as a former WLC student have now been confirmed as fact. It is also extremely pretentious that John would ridicule Craig for the circumstances of his religious preferences, and not being sensitive to those areas considering John has "been there before." And the possibility that Craig could be right, and John could be wrong, is simply non-existent in John's mind. He's found the answers, through his mentor's training, and has utilized his experiences to his advantage. Hence, he reigns superior. It's nothing short of pretentiousness, in reality.

I wonder if Craig considers John to be his "friend" when John makes posts like these:

I learned from DC member Darrin at the Carrier/Craig debate that Craig said he would not debate his former students. That's what he said. I am now classed with a group of people, i.e., the people comprised of his former students. And Dr. Craig says he will not debate anyone in that class of people. Okay, I guess. But given the fact that I'm probably the only member of this class of people who wants to debate him he might as well have said: "I will not debate John W. Loftus."I've heard him say this before about former students, so it’s not really like he’s singling me out, or is it? While I was a student of his he said something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig was on a High School debate team and has been debating these topics for probably just as long as I've been thinking about them. And he had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."

He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will.

I wouldn't doubt the possibility that John has become accustomed to using reverse psychology on his readers, whether they agree with him or not. Actually, it's not even so much a possibility, as it is a truth. That can be deduced from John's blog shenanigans a couple of years ago. And John's largely inflated ego and overall low argumentative intelligence, give me the impression that this is no different. Am I expected to believe that John's former professor who has authored many more books than he ever has is somehow afraid to debate him, or that he even said what John claims he said back in 1985? I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone else should subject themselves to buying it either.

Does he really fear me? I don’t know. But just maybe he does after all. He could change his mind though. I think a lot of people would be interested in this match-up.

If he changes his mind let me suggest a debate topic: Evangelical Christianity is More Probable Than Any Other Alternative. Why should he want to debate any other topic? This is what he believes is it not?

Since John basically argues against Evangelical Christianity, and makes that highlight out to be the entire depiction of Christianity, how are we going to believe that Craig is convinced that evangelism is the most probable alternative as John would have this debate titled? So John is not only being pretentious here, but additionally presumptous. The sad thing is, most of his subscribers believe him, uncritically.

While our good hero DJ presumes that TWeb is a "sewer" to be avoided, he isn't getting the good reception he would like to have from elsewhere:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/p...6&postcount=56

"Forget about trying to win friends and influence people; this kind of obnoxious bluster is the reason that many people don't take you seriously. If you kept better control of your tongue, more people might be interested in what you have to say. But the unargued assertions and name calling in which you're indulging here are not a good advertisement.

Hey John, by the way, how many times has it been now that you've written the same book? Wait, let me guess, your next book it going to be about how you were once a Christian and now you're an atheist! Wow! I've never heard that one before (especially from you John)! It's time for another topic John!!!"

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/rfforum/show_single_post?pid=32671070&postcount=58

"Look John, we know you've been doing everything to make your name off of Dr. Craig's. You name drop him like a baby drops bombs. Coming here in this forum and being an arrogant jerk just makes you look like a clown. I wonder if you can go at least one year without mentioning Dr. Craig's name."

It's just as fellow TWebber "Mountain Man" once stated:

"And he thinks he has it rough here at TheologyWeb."

Amen to that.

44 comments:

  1. You have yet to explain why. By that, I mean why Holding is "using" me.

    You don't seem to be one for answering direct questions, do you John?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your case anyway, it's because you're a "useful idiot."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the term "useful idiots" would apply to those that contribute, John...

    ReplyDelete
  4. For what it's worth, I don't think there can ever be a rock-solid, infallible argument for or against Christianity. There are too many unknowns as well as assertions on both sides that can't really be "proven" within a 100% confidence level. Most of the things we take as evidence of something in daily life may or may not be true, and that's when we have some tangible experience of it. I've been "certain" of quite a few things that I was later shocked to find weren't true at all.

    In other words, some humility on both sides seems warranted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If John has a Dissertation sitting in front of a Review Committe, he could perhaps claim to have the "equivalent" of a Ph.D.

    But he does not, so he can not.

    Two or Three Masters does NOT add up to a Ph.D.; to claim such demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Ph.D.

    John is lying, or ignorant.

    Face it, he was in a Ph.D. program, and he dropped out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If anyone thinks this argument effectively deals with mine then he is probably a sophomore in college like Nick was when he wrote it (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong). *No sophomore could actually understand the relevant issues involved*."

    What? Then why do you have a blurb from a college freshman/sophomore both on your website and on the back of your book?

    Here's the review from which the quote by Chris Hallquist on the back of your book was pulled. Note the date: 2006.
    http://www.secularstudents.org/node/550

    Here's a link to Hallquist's website, which lists him as a senior in college this year:

    http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/about/

    And here's a link to your website, on which you quote from Hallquist -- then a freshman in college -- complimenting your book:

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-became-atheist.html

    Damn, John -- you really will say whatever it takes to 'win' an argument; you don't give a damn about the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Come now children - is this a platform for serious discussion or a playground squabble that has overflowed?

    hamba kahle - peace

    ReplyDelete
  8. akakiwibear, you signed up for this child's playground. Enjoy it. I have yet to see anything but straw men and personal attacks. Nothing serious takes place here that I can see.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, shouldn't you even try to respond to the undeniable evidence I've presented that proves your hypocrisy? If no college sophomore could understand the arguments in your book, then why include a blurb from one on the back of it? If no college sophomore could understand the arguments in your book, then why keep Hallquist's recommendation up on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  10. stevegemma, you just are not making any sense. Where did I ever make such a claim in the first place? Please learn to read. And even if a sophmore is typically not that knowledable there are indeed exceptions. Nick is not one of them. Hallq is one of them (and not just because he recommends my book you twit). Hallq himself is an author of two books (one published on the Internet Infidels and the other one ready to go). Nevertheless Hallq is now a senior in college and he still maintains what he wrote. In fact check back and I'm sure he will still think maintain what he wrote when he's a professor at a university. that's my prediction. Stay tuned.

    Sheesh. That was easy.

    You guys major on straw men and personal attacks. You are idiots. Grow up. No wonder I have no respect for you or the small minority of people who follow Holding over at TWeb, and no wonder I make a mockery of you people. You deserve it. All of you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I laughed when I read "a doctorate in philosophy and other related subjects".

    If I recall correctly, he wrote his dissertations on the KCA and on the resurrections (which is close to obvious, I think).

    He once answered this for his Q&A:
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6727

    Oh and John, I think your reputation (which depends on your behaviour) will get you the same treatment from any christian community.
    I fell almost sorry for you. I wonder if the new poll at DC will change anything (you know the poll on "How should I behave?" which is a pretty strange topic to choose).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matthew I do not treat Christians badly. If I did there would be at least some evidence for this on my Blog at least some of the time. While you might find a few exceptions to this the rule is that I treat Christian people fairly respectfully, certainly much better than most skeptical Blogs.

    Now take a look at this blog here for a minute and imagine that it's YOU they are writing about. Surely if you commented at all you would mock them, and I do. I spit in their faces, so to speak. This is the kind of treatment I received from Holding and company from the very beginning. I tried to be reasonable but with his policy of ridiculing unbelievers it was to no avail. That's the viewpoint he has toward us. We're ignorant, stupid, and deserve nothing but ridicule. I finally gave up trying to be resanable and started mocking them all. That's the only response they will ever get from me until they grow up and enter the adult world of a reasonable discussion.

    Ahhhhhh. But I'm merely wasting my time writing this.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Where did I ever make such a claim in the first place? Please learn to read."

    I quoted you verbatim. You wrote it in response to Nick's paper on this very blog, which was what, two posts ago?

    -------------------------------------------------
    "Please learn to read. And even if a sophmore is typically not that knowledable there are indeed exceptions."

    "No sophomore could actually understand the relevant issues involved."
    -------------------------------------------------
    I have to learn to read? You wrote 'no sophomore.' Now you write that there are exceptions. Perhaps you need to learn to think clearly, since thinking clearly is a prerequisite to writing clearly.

    Oh, and why do you have Hallquist listed as "president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison," while not listing "Sophomore philosophy major," or, at least, "undergraduate majoring in philosophy." Could it be because "president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison" sounds soooooo much better, and makes him look like a serious academic, and not just a student? I have nothing against Hallquist. He's smart, and his blog is good. My problem is with your misrepresentations and contradictions. Imagine if Holding had a blurb on one of his books by "president of Christian Philosopers, University of Wisconsin-Madison" that said "Holding's X argument will go down in the history of the philosophy of religion," and you were to learn that it was written by a freshman! You'd go ape-sh*t, and you know it. Here's a simple way to think about it: if the people who are reading the blurbs on the back of your book were to learn that Hallquist was at best a sophomore in college when he wrote it, would they judge his recommendation differently? You KNOW they would.

    "Sheesh. That was easy."

    You're right. It was. That's the second time I've given you an old fashioned intellectual a*s whoopin'. I thought you were supposed to be smart, with all those degrees, your own book, a popular blog, and all. I never even went to college, and I'm kicking your butt all over the place!

    ReplyDelete
  14. And even if a sophmore is typically not that knowledable there are indeed exceptions. Nick is not one of them.

    Is it due to his physical handicap, John?

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1790304#post1790304

    You couldn't even man up to this when you were confronted by Dee Dee Warren. You've got a whole mountain of evidence that speaks wonders about your moral traits and how well you present yourself as a total scumbag. I don't think someone in your position is of a healthy mental state. No one could be this incredibly self-righteous and in such self-denial as you are.

    You guys major on straw men and personal attacks. You are idiots. Grow up. No wonder I have no respect for you or the small minority of people who follow Holding over at TWeb, and no wonder I make a mockery of you people. You deserve it. All of you.

    YOU grow up. Come to grips with reality and sprout some peaches. It's time to let go of that admiration you have for yourself and find some other social coping methods other then being in self-denial all of the time. You're not anything special. These stupid shit shenanigans you pull all the time, your "revisionist history" and your inconsistent flip-flopping are not going to save you in the end. You will end up just like you started, at nowhere.

    I have yet to see anything but straw men and personal attacks. Nothing serious takes place here that I can see.

    I guess you missed the point of how important it is that you should probably be wondering why another forum, completely unrelated to the operations at TWeb, would scowl at you like it already is.

    Also, how is it that Dr. Craig is your "friend" if he isn't even going to debate you and you disrespect his mental state because of his personal beliefs, those of which you personally adhered too at some point in your life???

    Now, just where have I heard you saying that agnosticism was the "default position"? Ahhh...yeah, it was right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxW193iCkPw Luckily for you, this is taped, so you can't deny saying this, or attempt to twist the words to fit your convenience.

    Note also, that reiterating that you "balanced the scales in favor of atheism" will not justify your hypocricy.

    Matthew I do not treat Christians badly. If I did there would be at least some evidence for this on my Blog at least some of the time. While you might find a few exceptions to this the rule is that I treat Christian people fairly respectfully, certainly much better than most skeptical Blogs.

    Banning people from your blogs that you see as "ignorant" is definetly a fair treatment of the issues, John. You have three masters, so I wonder how anyone could possibly compete with such a standard of what you would consider to be "educated." Don't kid yourself.

    Perhaps you need to be schooled in the differences of subjective and objective terms, and then their proper applications, no?

    Now take a look at this blog here for a minute and imagine that it's YOU they are writing about. Surely if you commented at all you would mock them, and I do. I spit in their faces, so to speak.

    I'll be blunt here, John. Most of what you say and do is best compared to you pissing in the wind. Of course, we could say you are spitting in the wind, that works too!

    I tried to be reasonable but with his policy of ridiculing unbelievers it was to no avail. We're ignorant, stupid, and deserve nothing but ridicule. I finally gave up trying to be resanable and started mocking them all.

    Bullshit. You know this is a lie. I would post your introductory thread, where your mental illness went off the radar and you started reacting emotionally to no particular aggressive stimuli, but it shall not be easy to find. Mark my words, when I do find it (and I will) I will post it here for any objective bystanders (assuming they have the intelligence) to make a judgement of just who you really are.

    Ahhhhhh. But I'm merely wasting my time writing this.

    Cheers.


    You'll be back, John. You and I both know it. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. As previously promised, this is the exact thread in which John introduced himself to the community of TheologyWeb.com. While I believe the conclusion to be made is rather obvious, based on reality, I leave you to decide of what exactly went on in this situation:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=54217

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm done here. This will be my last comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm done here. This will be my last comment.

    Wells folks, here you have it. The surrender of a man who can't challenge the facts or own up to anything, and decides instead, that it would be better to run away.

    You're a coward, DJ. See you next month!

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is amazing is that he bases his whole devonversion story in his book on anecdotal personal stories and provides NO BASIS WHATSOVER for verifying ANY of it.

    I mean, he ADMITS he lied to his wife, his congregation, and that his own family did not trust him?

    So why are we supposed to take is word for anything.

    This is not a personal attack, but a question about issues JOHN HIMSELF raises in his book.

    HE is the one who constantly says how HONEST he is.

    HE is the one who makes it an issue.

    And yet he provides to basis for checking it out.

    ReplyDelete
  19. For once I acknowledge John has a point akakiwibear, you signed up for this child's playground. Enjoy it Hey my mistake.

    But I notice that John is not too clean when recess is over!

    I am out of this!

    Hamba kahle -peace

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like the total freedom of speech policy. But some moderation is usually necessary in any blog that discusses subjects that people feel strongly about. There's also different types and kinds of moderation, from kindly reminders to instant banning, blathering and ridicule aimed at even the smallest points of controversy.

    Just wanted to say that the question of who is or is not an "egotist" on the internet is a moot one.

    Is John Loftus an egotist for self-promoting his book?

    Is J.P. Holding an egotist for constantly begging for money so he can self-publish his books?

    What about J.P.'s ego in relation to his reliance on grade school ridicule, his close attention to being sleighted in the least which merely heightens his ridicule and unforgiveness, and his imagination being so great as to convince himself that he's come out on the topside of every discussion and/or debate he's ever had, such that he hands himself virtual trophies in his trophy room?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Speaking of egos, I'd also like to know why J.P.'s ego is such that he imagines he has cornered the market on various biblical interpretations.

    His interpretation of the story of "Elisha and the children attacked by bears" is a minor case in point. Has not the story been translated by professional biblical scholars as speaking of "young children," not a dangerous gang of older youth, the latter being J.P.'s chosen interpretation? Even in an honor-shame culture (that J.P. emphasizes was that of the Bible) Yahweh's jealousy would hardly spare even very young children if they insulted His holiness or his prophet, right? The "children came out of the city [of Bethel]," called the prophet names like "baldy," and then the prophet "turned round," cursed them, and Yahweh followed suit with deadly force for the sake of his prophet's honor. In an honor-shame society the killing of even young children for taunting a prophet makes just as much sense as Holding's interpretation that it was a dangerous gang of teens.

    Also, as someone wrote on tweb who enjoyed reading books about the historical method of biblical studies (yet who left tweb in disgust at the ridicule handed round there), "Bethel, the town out of which the children came, was also a prosperous town, well defended, as is attested to in both the text, and archaeologically, and thus we can reasonably extrapolate that it was well-policed." Not exactly evidence that Bethel was filled with roving gangs of deadly teens. J.P. calls it "unfortunate" that translators who have studied the text and the context of the story employed the "young children" translation. But the story of bears maiming 42 "little children" makes as much sense in an honor-shame society as does J.P.'s choice of interpretation.

    In short, J.P. may prefer his interpretation, but it's unproven, and he comes off as ridiculing anyone who holds an interpretation other than his concerning this particular story.

    I suppose there's some reason he holds to the dangerous gang of youth interpretation, perhaps because it makes a bit more sense by today's ethical standards. But in an honor-shame society even tales of Yahweh killing children, even babies and pregnant women, fits just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Doubtful that they were "rowdy teens" given the life expectancy of the time and the fact that one became an adult in that culture at around 12 or 13.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ANCHOR BIBLE translation of II Kings 2:23-24:

    He went from there up to Beth-el. As he was on the way, some young boys came out of the city and mocked him. They said, "Be off, baldy! Be off, baldy!" He turned around and, looking at them, he cursed them by the name of YHWH. Whereupon two she-bears came out of the forest and mauled forty-two of the youngsters.

    COMMENTARY--On his way through Beth-el, Elisha is accosted by a group of jeering urchins--a scene often repeated even today in the streets and markets of the Middle East to the discomfort of the unwary traveler. These he drives off with a curse invoking the name of YHWH, potent enough to cut down forty-two of their number... "Forty-two" occurs again in the number of victims slain by Jehu in II Kings 10:14. Was it a figure expressing a large number (cf. Gray), common to the story-telling of that period? In b. Sota 47a, the tally of the sacrifices of Balak king of Moab is given as "forty-two."]...

    The story of the prophet's effective use of the name of YHWH was set close to the beginning of the Elisha cycle, for it confirmed by a sure sign he was now "father" to the Sons of the Prophets... Just as the prophetic word heals and gives life (cf. II Kings 2:19-22), so, too, it brings death.
    --II Kings (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) by Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor (Mar 1, 1988)
    http://www.amazon.com/Kings-II-Anchor-Yale-Bible/dp/038502388X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238190937&sr=8-2#reader

    BERIT OLAM SERIES commentary--At Beth-el the first group of prophetic disciples came out to meet Elisha in section "B"; now at Beth-el in sectioon "B" Elisha is accosted not by "sons of the prophets" but by "little boys (nearim qetannim)" who similarly come out (the same Hebrew verb) to him from the city. Their repeated taunt, "Go up, baldy, go up baldy!" hardly seems severe enough to warrant Elisha's curse. On the other hand, if their jeer is intended as an invidious contrast between the hairless Elisha and the hirsuite Elijah, his anger is perhaps understandable. In any case, the episode provides an occasion for the writer to show the fledging prophet calling down divine curse as well as blessing, hurt as well as healing. The power at Elisha's disposal is raw and amoral. Whether or not the bad boys of Beth-el got what was coming to them, the tale engenders in the reader a healthy respect of Elijah's successor.
    --2 Kings (Berit Olam Series) by Robert L. Cohn, David W. Cotter, Jerome T. Walsh, and Chris Franke (Hardcover - April 2000)
    http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Berit-Olam-Robert-Cohn/dp/0814650546/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238190937&sr=8-3#reader

    So J.P. Holding has not proven his tough street gang interpretation of those "little boys" or "urchins" as the above commentators called them. Neither is there anything in the text to endorse J.P. Holding's interpretation above those interpretations offered by the experts above. The text is sparse indeed. Read it again. It's about Elisha's demonstration of power, calling on the name of the Lord, and the passing on of the mantle of power from Elijah to Elisha. In other words who gives a shoot if some young kids get mauled by bears so long as YHWH is honored? It's a shame-honor society, to hell with those who dare to oppose that society and its message about "God," including jeering street urchins. So there's not even any reason for J.P. to try and make the story appear
    "moral" by today's standards.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Right you are Ed:

    נער (boy; youth) קטנ ( small, little 2. Young) MT text

    Παιδαρια (little boy, child); μικρα (small in mass; short insignificant) equals LXX

    ReplyDelete
  25. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible:

    The word for "children" is used of persons of thirty or forty years of age; and though these are said to be "little", they were so well grown as to be able to go forth out of the city of themselves, without any to guide them, or to take care of them; and were of an age capable not only of taking notice of Elijah's baldness, but knew him to be a prophet, and were able to distinguish between good and evil; and, from a malignant spirit in them, mocked at him as such, and at the assumption of Elijah; which they had knowledge of, and to whom, taught by their idolatrous parents, they had an aversion: some Jewish writers say, they were called "Naarim", which we render "children", because shaken from the commandments, or had shaken off the yoke of the commands; and "little", because they were of little faith...

    Commentary Critical and Explanatory
    on the Whole Bible
    :

    "there came forth little children out of the city"--that is, the idolatrous, or infidel young men of the place, who affecting to disbelieve the report of his master's translation, sarcastically urged him to follow in the glorious career.

    The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge:

    The words nëârim ketannim not only signify little children but young men; for katon signifies not only little, but young, in opposition to old; and näâr signifies not only a child, but a young man grown to years of maturity: thus Isaac is called näâr when twenty-eight years old, Joseph when thirty-nine, and Rehoboam when forty. These idolatrous young men, having heard of the ascension of Elijah, without believing it, blasphemously bade Elisha to follow him. The venerable prophet, from a Divine impulse, pronounced a curse "in the name of the Lord," which was immediately followed by the most terrible judgment; thus evincing the Source from which it flowed.

    John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:

    Children - Or, young men: as this Hebrew word often signifies. It is more than probable they were old enough to discern between good and evil.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Veil of Absence,
    I see you've chosen to cite some old commentaries, John Gill preached around Spurgeon's Day. Wesley's commentary? These old spiritualized commentaries and commentators did not have the benefit of modern knowledge and studies of ancient Hebrew language and culture, and they also "spiritualized" their way out of difficulties, exactly as your commentary quotations suggest. Please note that I was citing the leading modern day experts in the field, and please doubly note that there is nothing in the text that shows this was a dangerous mob akin to inner city youth gangs today. It only speaks about children, urchins, coming out of the city and calling a prophet names, and the prophet turns round and curses them. The point of the story is also totally unrelated to the age of the kids who get mauled, but is meant to show that Elisha has the power of Yahweh, the mantle of Elijah, and if some kids who call this true prophet names happen to get mauled or even killed, that means nothing in such a culture. Let them learn their lesson which is to fear God and his true prophets, and to honor God. Shame-honor society as J.P. can tell you, though he wants to find "more" in the story, like some gang of dangerous youth. But really, Yahweh kills children, pregnant women, in the O.T., either doing it Himself or commanding it, so many times, from the Flood to the firstborn of Egypt to commanding children's deaths at the hand of the Israelites, to sending famines, or armies and having starving parents resort to eating their own children (as Yahweh's curse on them), that I fail to understand why J.P. would even want to stick to only one interpretation concerning this story. It fits the O.T. genre just fine. It fits a shame-honor society.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ed Dumbuttski said:

    “Is John Loftus an egotist for self-promoting his book?”

    Um, you mean REPEATEDLY self-promoting his book everywhere he goes and writing his own glowing review on Amazon, Edski? I guess not!

    ”Is J.P. Holding an egotist for constantly begging for money so he can self-publish his books?”

    You mean like Richie “Quacks in Greek” Carrier did, Edski? And not even with a tax deduction for those who offer?

    Having self-esteem issues because you’ve been embarrassed by me so many times, Edski?

    ”Speaking of egos, I'd also like to know why J.P.'s ego is such that he imagines he has cornered the market on various biblical interpretations.”

    Because idiots like you reply with idiot replies like these, Edski:

    ”Has not the story been translated by professional biblical scholars as speaking of ‘young children,’ not a dangerous gang of older youth, the latter being J.P.'s chosen interpretation?”

    Your point being what, Edski? This isn’t an answer to the MANY points I brought up in this regard, showing that these “youth” were obviously not toddlers or young kids:

    • They were old enough to recognize a prophet of God and insult him
    • The same word is used to refer to Ishmael when he was 14 or 15 years old [Gen. 21], of all 11 of Jacob's sons at their varying ages [Gen. 32:22], of boys born to the Hebrews [Ex. 1:17].
    • The word the KJV renders "little" is used of what are clearly small children; but it is also used of Rachel compared to Leah in Genesis, and of the moon compared to the sun in lighting ability.
    • They were old enough to gang together for survival.

    And your answer to all this is, “Duhhh. The translations say little children”???

    You’re such a moron, Edski.

    “In an honor-shame society the killing of even young children for taunting a prophet makes just as much sense as Holding's interpretation that it was a dangerous gang of teens.”

    All that shows, Edski, is that when it comes to the mechanics of honor and shame societies...you’re an idiot. It does make sense in their world, whether you like it or not, and “nuh uh” is not an answer. For them, honor was more important than life. Hint: Japanese. Hari kari. Google it, twit.

    ”Also, as someone wrote on tweb who enjoyed reading books about the historical method of biblical studies (yet who left tweb in disgust at the ridicule handed round there), “

    No, you left because you kept getting your rear end handed to you on a platter.

    "Bethel, the town out of which the children came, was also a prosperous town, well defended, as is attested to in both the text, and archaeologically, and thus we can reasonably extrapolate that it was well-policed." Not exactly evidence that Bethel was filled with roving gangs of deadly teens.”

    That’s why it happened OUTSIDE Bethel, you moron! It says that they came OUT OF THE CITY.

    Sheesh! All those years sticking labels in the library basement and you’re STILL Not literate?

    “ANCHOR BIBLE translation of II Kings 2:23-24:”

    Nice pull quote. Doesn’t address a word I say.

    ”BERIT OLAM SERIES commentary”

    Another nice pull quote. Just either repeats the arguments I’ve ALREADY REFUTED or else agrees with me. Do you even bother making critical comparisons, Edski, or do you just think, “Duh, this mentions the bears. Duh, that means it must refute Holding. Duh”?

    “It's a shame-honor society, to hell with those who dare to oppose that society and its message about ‘God,’ including jeering street urchins.”

    That’s right, Edski. And you, whose moral compass is so badly busted that you excuse harassing phone calls and lies by people like Salm, and who align yourself with bald-faced (not bald) liars like Loftus – show exactly WHY that Biblical morality is superior.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Harry “Obscene Phone” McCall said:

    “Right you are Ed: נער (boy; youth) קטנ ( small, little 2. Young) MT text

    Παιδαρια (little boy, child); μικρα (small in mass; short insignificant) equals LXX”

    WHOA! What business dictionary did you dig THAT out of, Chester? Why don’t you look up “patronage” in it too?

    Unfortunately, Harry, as usual, you’re out of your depth, fiddle-farting in sources beyond your ignorance to handle. I’ll show it by asking a simple question:

    What did Jesus call his disciples in John 21:5?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Holdie squawks: Wow, are you stupid! :D The reason that the book isn't on Amazon, you twit, is that the person who financed it had his OWN selling mechanisms in place, and so saw no need to pay Xulon Press the additional $500 required to get it set up for them to sell it. We've sold plenty of copies via THAT route, thanks!

    Right Holdie, why dump your money into a loosing book. Can’t say I blame you!

    As for as: As usual, Chester the Molestor charges ahead and ends up getting himself slammed to the mat!

    Give me a break! I talked directly to your wife and you can’t even get past the front desk. What did you get for all your trouble? You were given a name of a man who retired 24 years ago and has been dead now for over 10 years…that’s about as up to date as your books are in scholarship!

    Do you even know how he got his kick name?… It has totally nothing to do with humans, so tell me!

    And your lame claim of “patronage”, how many bonds and stocks did Jesus sell as your dumb-ass broker label? Talk about a business dictionary, “Jesus as broker”! I’m sure Wall Street is in the Bible too, or at least in your Businessman’s Study Bible edition.

    The next time you are at a church in North Carolina running your mouth at a church about the Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts, let me know and I drive up; but then, you may get suddenly sick and cancel out.

    I saw your You-Tube video on the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum. Just another faith based heap of faith of poor research.

    Tell you what Holdie, why don’t you help out poor ole Christopher Price (aka: Layman) when I post a reply to his demands: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/01/debunking-christianity-swimming-at.html

    He’s really set himself up to take a nasty fall; this should be interesting: Two for the Price of one!

    As for John 21: 5, Are we or are we not discussing the Hebrew text?

    As far as the LXX:
    καὶ ἀνέβη ἐκεῖθεν εἰς βαιθηλ καὶ ἀναβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ Παιδαρια μικρα ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ ἀνάβαινε φαλακρέ ἀνάβαινε.

    This use has an adjective modifier (notice the case ending) emphasizing the kids as small.

    However, to use the New Testament with the word as John 21: 5 check out Mark 9: 37 and 10: 13.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Harry “Obscene Phone McCall” quacked:

    “Right Holdie, why dump your money into a loosing book”

    You mean like your little black book? You’re still dating inflatables, aren’t you, Harry?

    “You were given a name of a man who retired 24 years ago and has been dead now for over 10 years”

    Whatever the hell that’s supposed to be about. Harry’s been snorting furniture polish again and is responding to some other post that happened 6 years ago.

    “And your lame claim of 'patronage', how many bonds and stocks did Jesus sell as your dumb-ass broker label? Blah blah blah"

    Good job, Harry! Just keep saying stupid stuff like that; you’ll win another Platinum Screwball for DJ’s Useful Idiot Club! :D As long as you’re this ignorant of the social structures of the Greco-Roman world, we’ll have lots of fun!

    “let me know and I drive up; but then, you may get suddenly sick and cancel out.”

    Harry, one look at YOUR Chester the Molestor face is enough to get Richard Simmons or Dr. Oz sick!

    ”I saw your You-Tube video on the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum. Just another faith based heap of faith of poor research.”

    IOW something else you’re too stupid to answer, let alone Price’s detailed thrummings. News flash: You’re too dumb to tell the difference between the “full interpolation” and “partial interpolation” position. Keep on slapping yourself! :D Price doesn't need any hep; you make yourself look stupid as is.


    ”As for John 21: 5, Are we or are we not discussing the Hebrew text?”

    You’re the moron who brought Greek into the picture, Harry!

    ”This use has an adjective modifier (notice the case ending) emphasizing the kids as small.”

    Aw, aren’t you smart. Your point being what? “Little” in terms of “insignificant” is ALSO an adjective, Harry. You’re jumping the gun here. I asked you what Jesus called them in John 21:5. Now stop flapping your dentures and answer the question.

    Or is it that you do you KNOW you’re going to get twitch-slapped the same way you did on patronage?

    Just for kicks, too, someone sent me this to spin your head into the ditch:


    1 Samuel 15:17και ειπεν σαμουηλ προς σαουλ ουχι μικρος συ ει ενωπιον αυτου ηγουμενος σκηπτρου φυλης ισραηλ και εχρισεν σε κυριος εις βασιλεα επι ισραηλ

    Saul considers himself little in his eyes. Saul was a head taller than all the others....

    1 Samuel 16:11

    και ειπεν σαμουηλ προς ιεσσαι εκλελοιπασιν τα παιδαρια και ειπεν ετι ο μικρος ιδου ποιμαινει εν τω ποιμνιω και ειπεν σαμουηλ προς ιεσσαι αποστειλον και λαβε αυτον οτι ου μη κατακλιθωμεν εως του ελθειν αυτον

    David is said to be the littlest son. He was apparently big enough to fight a giant.

    2 Samuel 9:12

    και τω μεμφιβοσθε υιος μικρος και ονομα αυτω μιχα και πασα η κατοικησις του οικου σιβα δουλοι του μεμφιβοσθε

    Referring to Mica as the youngest son of Mephibosheth.

    1 Chron. 12:14

    ουτοι εκ των υιων γαδ αρχοντες της στρατιας εις τοις εκατον μικρος και μεγας τοις χιλιοις

    The least Gadite officer was a match for a hundred man and the greatest for a thousand.

    2 Chronicles 10:10

    και ελαλησαν αυτω τα παιδαρια τα εκτραφεντα μετ' αυτου ουτως λαλησεις τω λαω τω λαλησαντι προς σε λεγων ο πατηρ σου εβαρυνεν τον ζυγον ημων και συ αφες αφ' ημων ουτως ερεις ο μικρος δακτυλος μου παχυτερος της οσφυος του πατρος μου

    Refers to the little finger. (The one you keep in your nose, Harry.)

    Job 3:19

    μικρος και μεγας εκει εστιν και θεραπων ου δεδοικως τον κυριον αυτου

    The small and the great are there.

    Whatcha want on your tombstone, Harry?

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. OK: Time for Hebrew and Greek 101:

    [My first post was deleted since it reversed the order of paired Hebrew words. I started to reedited it, but just use a Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgartensia edition)) if you’ve got one.]

    I Samuel 15:17
    οὐχὶ μικρὸς σὺ εἶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ So what’s the point of the Nomative singular use of μικρὸς here? So you’ve located a word meaning “small in mass”…so what? The exegetical context provides the genitive personal pronoun of αὐτοῦ for Saul as a man who consider himself the least to be king in Israel. So how does it equate to καὶ παιδάρια μικρὰ and קטנים ונערים in 2 Kings 2: 23?

    I Samuel 16:11
    ἐκλελοίπασιν τὰ Παιδαρια (ונערים ) is not use with ἔτι ὁ μικρὸς ( קטנ) ἰδοὺ ποιμαίνει ἐν τῷ ποιμνίῳ The texts is a compound sentence with the conjunction and verb και ειπεν equaled to והנה In neither case is Παιδαρια (ונערים ) and μικρὸς ( קטנ) used together in the same part of the conjunction as in 2 Kings 2: 23.

    2 Samuel 9: 12
    καὶ τῷ μεμφιβοσθε υἱὸς μικρὸς equals בן־קטן Young is construct of Ben (son)
    But in neither case does υἱὸς μικρὸς equal παιδάρια nor בן־קטן equals קטנים נערים

    I Chronicles 12: 14
    τῶν υἱῶν γαδ is not παιδάρια and both μικρὸς καὶ μέγας refer back to υἱῶν Since the LXX is an expansion on the Hebrew, it is in effect a running commentary on the MT.

    Again, what’s your point here? I would strongly suggest you reference the number of definitions for μικρὸς in either a Classical; New Testament or Patristic Greek Lexicon.

    2 Chronicles 10: 10
    τὰ παιδάρια τὰ ἐκτραφέντα μετ' αὐτοῦ is related how to ὁ μικρὸς δάκτυλός but הילדים does not equal נערים So what?

    Job 3: 19
    μικρὸς καὶ μέγας ἐκεῖ ἐστιν equals קטן וגדול but, again not קטנים ונערים or παιδάρια μικρὰ
    No more that κύριον αὐτοῦ would mean “your Lord” (as in Yahweh is your Lord).

    Holdie, the next time someone does your work for you, it might help if they can read a little Hebrew and Greek to see how the words are used together in sentence syntax.

    Whatcha want on your tombstone, Harry?

    JP: What about a Tombstone Pizza? Make it a supreme thick crust!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall whines:

    "OK: Time for Hebrew and Greek 101"

    YAWN....thanks, Harry. You just shot yourself.

    What you just did was contextualize each of those passages to explain WHY the readings of those words in terms of mass, etc. are correct.

    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID TO SHOW THAT READING "LITTLE CHILDREN" IN THE ELISHA PASSAGE IS WRONG, YOU MORON. Thanks for proving my point that it isn't a matter of just reading the words "as is" but of contextualizing them! :D

    By the way, Harry, no one is gullible enough to believe that a hayseed like you who refers to scenes in the NT as "periscopes" and has never heard of ancient patronage relationships actually has any idea, eg, what a "nominative singular" is. You're obviously just copying this from some source like a lexicon without having any idea what is actually means. You've already proven yourself to be an ignoramus beyond redemption, so all this waving around of Greek and Hebrew on your part is an obvious scam, a way for you to salvage some self-esteem after making such a fool of yourself murdering the King's English and fumbling around in business dictionaries to define ancient patronage.

    "Holdie, the next time someone does your work for you, it might help if they can read a little Hebrew and Greek to see how the words are used together in sentence syntax."

    Please, Harry....your knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is limited to knowing how to sit on a lexicon at the dinner table, ever since your phone book got confiscated by the authorities after they caught you making one too many prank phone calls to Inflate-O-Date.

    "What about a Tombstone Pizza? Make it a supreme thick crust!"

    Oh, you're thick, all right. :D

    Congrats again on making my argument for me. Better check a business dictionary next time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Holdie, it truly show the idiot you really are! To put you in the view of the State Representative of South Carolina from the Greater Charleston Area; Mr. Robert Ford as to how he would have characterized you in the local Gullah dialect:

    “Holding done be stupid and his whole Tektonic website done be doomed!”

    To bad you never learned a Biblical language so would not have to get someone else to do what you obviously can not.

    “What you just did was contextualize each of those passages to explain WHY the readings of those words in terms of mass, etc. are correct”

    RE: Yea right and that coming from some who had to get another person to do the work for him! Yep, you sure know you stuff.

    “By the way, Harry, no one is gullible enough to believe that a hayseed like you who refers to scenes in the NT as "periscopes" …

    RE: Hey numb-skull, MS Word is as dumb as you are; it changed pericope to periscope. Duh!

    I see how fat an bloated you are on You Tube! If you need a real job you’d make a great Jenny Craig commercial: Hi, I’m JP Holding and I lost 300 lbs on the Jenny Craig diet. Now I’m back to my original weight of 290 lbs!”

    Hey, Holdie, when was the last time you saw your dick?! Are you even sure you’ll still a man, or maybe you are now become a “Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.”

    Better yet, you’d make a better candidate on the TV reality show The Biggest Losers. If you didn’t win physically, you’d sure win it mentally!

    Tell us Holdie what’s your bra size? You look like a real titty-girly-man. How many Twinkies did you have for lunch?

    Next time you attempt to formulate some Jesus as Stock Broker as a lame-brain half-ass ancient patronage relationships illusion, do everyone a favor and buy an Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3ed. I’m sure it maybe available soon with a whole box of Moon Pies as an incentive just for you! Fat Ass

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'll have some of what Harry's been snorting.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall, after snorting lemon Pledge:

    "To bad you never learned a Biblical language so would not have to get someone else to do what you obviously can not."

    No finer way to admit you just got your fanny kicked and exposed as a fraud, Harry! Good work! :D

    "Yep, you sure know you stuff."

    And you sure did answer it, didn't ya! Have another McDonald's coupon, so you can treat that Inflato-date RIGHT for a change!

    "Hey numb-skull, MS Word is as dumb as you are; it changed pericope to periscope. Duh!"

    Hey, Harry -- the excuse doesn't wash! You LET MS Word make the change! You're STUPID! Duh! :)

    "I see how fat an bloated you are on You Tube!"

    OOPS! TOO LATE FOR THAT ONE, HARRY!

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=118702

    Bad news -- I lost weight! But you STILL look like Chester the Molester!

    "How many Twinkies did you have for lunch?"

    You're the biggest Twinkie here, Harry! And like the ones from Hostess, you're little more than synthetic crap! :D

    "Next time you attempt to formulate some Jesus as Stock Broker as a lame-brain half-ass ancient patronage relationships illusion, do everyone a favor and buy an Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3ed."

    Dontcha mean "Oxford Business Dictionary," Harry? I'll be sure and let all those scholars know that Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall of Podunk, SC has figured out that they're all wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  37. So here is where your two so-called apologetic books got published; at a devotional self publishing press called Xulon.

    “We refuse to publish books that degrade the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (RE: Now that’s what I call objectivity!)

    And as one reviewer rightly put it about your first book:

    “Ultimately this is why self publication is a dangerous thing. There are an aweful lot of bad ideas and writing out there and with the advent of the internet and self publication authors who don't have the ability or talent to get published can do it themselves. But really, if you can't get published in the real world perhaps there's a good reason for that?

    RE: Amen to that!

    Until you can prove you are an objective person who does not have to pay for his books to be published and can respect others, I have no more use for you. I’ve wasted enough of my time with you.

    Let me know when a publishing house will not have to be paid first and will publish a book you write based on own merit.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Okay JP, I'll try to take up the atheist perspective as Harry seems to have gone off on one.

    (Also, I'm impervious to inflate-a-date references!)

    I suppose my problem with the whole interpretation issue is that unless someone like me has a fully comprehensive knowledge of Ancient Hebrew/NT Greek; I (obviously) have to accept the English translation - my decision on which source to use would be based really on academic consensus and would be entirely faith based.

    If the average person cannot take the overtly implied meaning of a particular passage of scripture - in his own language - and reflect upon it himself; then how can he say that it is this that informs his faith?

    If scholars of ancient languages are the only ones privy to the "true" meaning of a passage like the Elisha one discussed above, then surely your everyday Joe has faith in (possibly fallible?) human beings and their interpretation of the Word rather than the Word itself as revealed personally to the reader, whatever his language.

    From what you seem to be implying, the current popular translations are wrong - or at the very least, misleading. Does this not strike you as a disturbing state of affairs - especially as translators seemingly hold the keys to the true understanding of scripture; and from that the very nature of God himself?

    What guarantee is there that the English language translations "say what they mean and mean what they say" so as to speak? How can anyone be sure that what they're reading is the definitive message when scholars like yourself bring forward persuasive counter-interpretations?

    It would seem to me that drastic revision is necessary - and would probably be very helpful too. After all, language evolves and the semantic loading of a text can be read in two dramatically different ways in the space of 400 years (this is in reference to die hard KJV fans) - or even 40 years.

    If I can't read a definitive and comprehensive description of God, his characteristics and his actions; how can I believe in him sans personal revelation?

    Regards


    Sarah.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Harry "Obscene Phone" McCall crybabied:

    "Until you can prove you are an objective person who does not have to pay for his books to be published and can respect others, I have no more use for you. I’ve wasted enough of my time with you."

    Yeah, I know, Harry -- you need SOME excuse to withdraw from this hiney-whuppin' your sorry redneck self is getting. :D

    As for people paying to have books published....you might want to talk to Valerie Tarico (lulu.com), Jason Long (iUniverse.com), Richard Carrier (AuthorHouse), and even your kissyface bud John Loftus (Trafford Press) about how to get things published based on their own merits.

    Actually, Harry....you're so dumb that even iUniverse would refuse to publish anything you wrote!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sarah:

    "Also, I'm impervious to inflate-a-date references!"

    Take a date with Harry and you'll always go back to Inflato-dates!

    As for the rest -- was I supposed to disagree with any of it? I don't. I'm very fond of making the point that Jesus called disciples, not couch potatoes. I really wish we had more people who learned the languages (or some other specialty) and taught about them. I wish we had better critical thinking so we could compare scholarly views and arguments.

    I'll put this another way: The bar for "average" has been badly lowered is what the problem is. The "everyday joe" is now far too lazy and self-consumed. We are pancake people, a mile wide and an inch thick. (Harry works for IHOP.) I'm writing a paper on this from an information manager's perspective; email me and I'll send you a preview.

    "From what you seem to be implying, the current popular translations are wrong - or at the very least, misleading. Does this not strike you as a disturbing state of affairs..."

    Yes....and you can find stuff all over Tekton indicating just how disturbing I find it to be. For example

    http://www.tektonics.org/gk/indictment.html

    I daresay Peter and John understood more about hypostases than 99.9% of churchgoers today.

    "How can anyone be sure that what they're reading is the definitive message when scholars like yourself bring forward persuasive counter-interpretations?"

    If you're that into it...as you may well be...you'll just have to be a disciple and follow the same path. :)

    "It would seem to me that drastic revision is necessary - and would probably be very helpful too."

    I'd say AMEN but you're not a believer in deity. How about "hip hip hooray"?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey, Holdie, when was the last time you saw your dick?! Are you even sure you’ll still a man, or maybe you are now become a “Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.”

    Your obnoxiousness is really taking the toll to the next level, Hare. Any average-minded person would take you for a clown who insists on further degrading the credibility behind Debunking Christianity and its affliates. Honestly, I'm not even sure I could be near as obnoxious as you are with taunting insults even if I tried.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow, this is tiring. Christians really think ad hominem attacks are proof that God gave himself a body so that he could kill himself and come back as a zombie.

    Sorry, ad hominem attacks don't cut it. Same goes for WLC, who talks loud and turns purple but never has any argument that doesn't boil down to, "But, but the Bible says Jesus came back as a zombie!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the same. Just a lot of ad hominem attacks and Authority fallacies. It should not be important the amount of books written by them. Quality > Quantity.

      Delete

If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.