stahrwe the bolded part (my doing) sounds a lot like what christians do I think they call it cherry picking so I would not be so quick to judge Wright.stahrwe wrote:I hate to keep correcting you but omitting inconvenient portions of the Bible does not qualify as higher criticism. It is nothing more or less than it is, and Wright should not be allowed to get away with it.DWill wrote:Well over 150 years ago, what was to become the tradition of higher biblical criticism was founded. It is basically this tradition that Wright follows. Anyone who finds that tradition to be invalid should not attempt to participate in a discussion premised on the validity of it. It is useless spinning of wheels. What stahrwe has always wanted to do is to conduct a forum premised on the lower criticism. I use the terms higher and lower without implying hierarchy; those are the terms in the field.
From religioustolerance.org: "Biblical Criticism, in particular higher criticism, deals with why and how the books of the Bible were written; lower criticism deals with the actual teachings of its authors. The word "criticism" must be one of the all-time least appropriate religious terms. Theologians do not engage in actual criticism - at least as the word is commonly understood. They analyze the Bible in order to understand it better."
Wright also makes erroneous claims about Bible stories he does include. For example, in the passage he includes: "18 And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground. And he smote thrice, and stayed. "
Wright refers to this a superstition. Can you explain what he means by that?
-
In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
TEoG Spillover Thread
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
- 14
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
DWill wrote:Is this list like Joseph McCarthy's famous list? Or, if there is a list, does it consist of so-called doctrinal errors, which need not be considered at all, and simple differences in interpretation?stahwre wrote:The number is not large only because I have refrained from nit picking. As I have mentioned nearly every page which refers to the Bible teams with misstatements and gross errors.DWill wrote:
I simply disagree entirely that The Evolution of God is any kind of slam against the Bible. You see it a such because Wright is a materialist and would examine any book whatseover in the same way, as one written by humans and displaying the same characteristics as any other written product. Does Wright use language of disrespect to describe the Bible? Show me this. The visceral disdain you speak of really occurs in other sources, I concede that, but Wright is not that type. I don't see KISS operating in his book, either. It seems a rather elaborate, even over-elaborate, argument that he gets into, as you say I indicated earlier.Explanation needed. You mention Wright's theory without even indicating what it is, I mean in the book itself, overall.In fact, the errors do negate Wright's thesis. Take the Son of Man example. Wright clearly parses this to fit his theory and therefore leaves what Jesus said on the table. Wright did not deal with it outright so what are you to conclude? Wright thought it was important enough to bring up and as long as Jesus did not say it Wright uses that as license to move forward with his story. But, in fact, I think the quote in the Bible and the Pharisees reaction stops Wright's theory in its tracks.It provides a narrative--so what? Wright can't consider something with so little historical substance. There are better explanations to be made using the Bible itself, archaeology, and other written sources.The situation is just as bad, or worse with the call of Abram. The Bible clearly provides a narrative of the transition from polytheism to monotheism and Wright doesn't even mention it.He does treat the Bible with the same attitude with which he treats Babylonian, Egyptian, or Canaanite texts, as he properly should. The asides or snide comments (as you see them) are spread around impartially.As for Wright's attitude toward Christianity and the Bible, I think it is obvious from the first sentence. What does he choose as an example of polytheism? Primitive humans farting. I suppose it was meant to be funny but it also set a tone. Throughout the rest of the text little snide comments and sarcastic comments pop up. I didn't mark them but they are there.How would you describe his target audience? Do you also object to his "marginalizing" the Koran, or is that all right? He puts out no conspiracy theories regarding the Gospels. He never makes a claim that any writers colluded.Wright wrote the book he wanted to. It is directed at his target audience with enough footnotes to impress, but his premise consists of conspiracy theories, marginalizing the Bible and often admittedly wild speculation.
I have given you specific page numbers where Wright makes major mistakes, misinterprets scripture and commits other missteps that in any other field would relegate his work to obscurity of the humor section. For some reason you have chosen not copy those posts here. I think this thread is a cop out. Its purpose is to move the criticisms from the main chapter discussions where they may be read to a side rail which no one will pay attention to. I object to that.
You told me that Wright does not claim to be a Bible scholar. There is a term applicable to use to respond but it is a crude term which I will not use. That is a cop-out on his part to allow him to dodge when he knows he is going to be caught. It is also disingenuous. Look at page 308 where Wright writes, "...Paul was himself confused about how Jesus envisioned His return."
What an amazingly ridiculous statement. Paul, the author of a majority of the New Testament was confused but 'not a Bible Scholar' Wright understands correctly? Did Wright write this sentence with a straght face? He had to be laughing at the people who would read that and nod at Wright's sage wisdom. Why are you promoting this book? Surely you have more objectivity than to buy that garbage!
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
- 14
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
stahwre wrote:
He could ask you the same question about your Bible could he not? But that said, I honestly do not see the hype with this book it just comes off to me as splitting hairs.Surely you have more objectivity than to buy that garbage!
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
Why deal with illegitimate text? Your claim here is irrational, only supported by your belief that the bible is sacred. Why deal with chapters on the eating habits of Thetans, when the only parts relevant are where L. Ron Hubbard gets his science wrong? That's higher criticism. You're mistaking it for lower criticism where it's not okay to omit parts of the text.The fact that Wright considers only parts of the Bible to be legitmate does not excuse him from dealing with those parts which he doesn't
This makes no sense. Could you rephrase what you mean? Do you mean the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the character within the book?You told me that Wright does not claim to be a Bible scholar. There is a term applicable to use to respond but it is a crude term which I will not use. That is a cop-out on his part to allow him to dodge when he knows he is going to be caught. It is also disingenuous. Look at page 308 where Wright writes, "...Paul was himself confused about how Jesus envisioned His return."
What an amazingly ridiculous statement. Paul, the author of a majority of the New Testament was confused but 'not a Bible Scholar' Wright understands correctly? Did Wright write this sentence with a straght face? He had to be laughing at the people who would read that and nod at Wright's sage wisdom. Why are you promoting this book? Surely you have more objectivity than to buy that garbage!
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.Interbane wrote:Why deal with illegitimate text? Your claim here is irrational, only supported by your belief that the bible is sacred. Why deal with chapters on the eating habits of Thetans, when the only parts relevant are where L. Ron Hubbard gets his science wrong? That's higher criticism. You're mistaking it for lower criticism where it's not okay to omit parts of the text.The fact that Wright considers only parts of the Bible to be legitmate does not excuse him from dealing with those parts which he doesn't
This makes no sense. Could you rephrase what you mean? Do you mean the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the character within the book?You told me that Wright does not claim to be a Bible scholar. There is a term applicable to use to respond but it is a crude term which I will not use. That is a cop-out on his part to allow him to dodge when he knows he is going to be caught. It is also disingenuous. Look at page 308 where Wright writes, "...Paul was himself confused about how Jesus envisioned His return."
What an amazingly ridiculous statement. Paul, the author of a majority of the New Testament was confused but 'not a Bible Scholar' Wright understands correctly? Did Wright write this sentence with a straght face? He had to be laughing at the people who would read that and nod at Wright's sage wisdom. Why are you promoting this book? Surely you have more objectivity than to buy that garbage!
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
What are you basing this assumption on?No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.
And who does the disallowing? God?
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
I am calling you out. This post is not objective it is contrived argumentation with no point and whose purpose is to divert the discussion.Interbane wrote:What are you basing this assumption on?No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.
And who does the disallowing? God?
Last edited by stahrwe on Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
It is no more contrived than your criticisms. If you are going to falsely criticize someone, you should at least be prepared to defend it. Your criticism is based on the premise that "a reader is not allowed to know more about what's written than the author." And you're criticizing Wright for making an amazingly ridiculous statement?I am calling you out. This post is not objective it is contrived argumentation with no point and whose purpose is to divert the discussion.
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: TEoG Spillover Thread
I am sure you can think of any number of instances where a reader might know more about a subject than the author, Star.
Your original "point" in this regard was silly in the extreme, and Interbane was just pointing that out.
Your original "point" in this regard was silly in the extreme, and Interbane was just pointing that out.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?