• In total there are 10 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 10 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

TEoG Spillover Thread

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
Azrael
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
13
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
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."
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.

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?
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.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahwre wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
Explanation needed. You mention Wright's theory without even indicating what it is, I mean in the book itself, overall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
Azrael
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
13
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

stahwre wrote:
Surely you have more objectivity than to buy that garbage!
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.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

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
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.
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!
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? :|
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
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
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.
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!
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? :|
No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.
What are you basing this assumption on?

And who does the disallowing? God? :|
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
No, the person reading the book is not allowed to have a greater understanding than the 'author' of the passage he is reading.
What are you basing this assumption on?

And who does the disallowing? God? :|
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.
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.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

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.
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?
User avatar
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

Unread post

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.
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?
Azrael
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
13
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: TEoG Spillover Thread

Unread post

Get ready to draw IB!
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”