Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Says who?

Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so.

If he discounts it as a myth, there is no "at least", you're fabricating a criticism based on your opinion, and nothing else. Then you're using your criticism to 'poison the well' so you can conveniently disregard the rest of Wright's book. That is despicable.

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

You've posted numerous examples where you interpret the bible to mean what you want. In your zealotous apologetics, you mistake "not impossible" for "likeliest explanation". The omission of a character during the resurrection, impaling through the wrists during crucifixion, selecting only certain Hebrew connotations. Are you truly blind to your guilt?

Dunning-Kruger Effect.

It helps when you know there is a name for it.

Interbane wrote:

Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Says who?

That's your response?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abrahamic_religion

Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so.

interbane wrote:If he discounts it as a myth, there is no "at least", you're fabricating a criticism based on your opinion, and nothing else. Then you're using your criticism to 'poison the well' so you can conveniently disregard the rest of Wright's book. That is despicable.

I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

interbane wrote:You've posted numerous examples where you interpret the bible to mean what you want. In your zealotous apologetics, you mistake "not impossible" for "likeliest explanation". The omission of a character during the resurrection, impaling through the wrists during crucifixion, selecting only certain Hebrew connotations. Are you truly blind to your guilt?

did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.

This comment makes my point for me. The likliest explanation is that Abraham heard, or thought he heard God call him.

johnson1010 wrote:Dunning-Kruger Effect.

It helps when you know there is a name for it.

So, it's kind of like claiming you know the Bible is crap without ever having read it?

That's your response?

Of course that's my response. I'm NOT taking the word of your fiction books. Corroborate it. I will not settle for faith as you do. Fiction books based on the same main character means they have common ancestry within the plotline, it does not mean that plotline reflects real life.

I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.

You can't get past the first few pages with finding ridiculous information that goes against all conventional wisdom. That is how your interpretations are more despicable. Because you think your rationalized opinions have as much merit as objective observation and inductive reasoning.

did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.

No, that's precisely the post I'm referring to. The likelihood of your interpretation is near zero. Why would Romans go to such great lengths to spike through a precise area of the hands when the wrists would do just fine? This is a rationalization. You interpret it to mean whatever you want. It's implausible. The plausible interpretation, and the most parsimonious one, is that they spiked through the wrists. Of course after making the repeated mistake of thinking adherence to your beliefs is what determines parsimony will require me to make an enlongated post showing why you're wrong.

deleted

Interbane wrote:

That's your response?

Of course that's my response. I'm NOT taking the word of your fiction books. Corroborate it. I will not settle for faith as you do. Fiction books based on the same main character means they have common ancestry within the plotline, it does not mean that plotline reflects real life.

I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.

You can't get past the first few pages with finding ridiculous information that goes against all conventional wisdom. That is how your interpretations are more despicable. Because you think your rationalized opinions have as much merit as objective observation and inductive reasoning.

did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.

No, that's precisely the post I'm referring to. The likelihood of your interpretation is near zero. Why would Romans go to such great lengths to spike through a precise area of the hands when the wrists would do just fine? This is a rationalization. You interpret it to mean whatever you want. It's implausible. The plausible interpretation, and the most parsimonious one, is that they spiked through the wrists. Of course after making the repeated mistake of thinking adherence to your beliefs is what determines parsimony will require me to make an enlongated post showing why you're wrong.

Read the article about the NG special. It explains why the Romans nailed through the hands.

stahrwe wrote: I am always amazed at the enthusiasm with which you yankees trapse off into the woods on hikes. Here in Florida we don't hike in the woods. There are not that many places where the woods aren't swamp and there are things there that will eat you.

I'm sure Florida has its wonders, but in my one journey down there I just couldn't see what there was to get so excited about. I guess the biodiversity, lacking in the WV mountains, would be what makes it special. But I can see that camping would be more of a challenge there, as you don't generally want to get so close to the biodiversity in that situation.

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

But if you look in the index, Abraham is not slighted. I think you might be misconceiving Wright's purpose in the book. He doesn't in a single instance that I can think of intend to debunk what Christians or Jews believe, though to you he may seem to. He hasn't intended to write a book about what Christians and Jews believe, so he wouldn't discuss the call of Abraham simply because it doesn't have a strong relevance to his main theme.

My concerns regarding the book are summed up well by the author himself on page 102. The last paragraph refers to 'selective decoding of the Bible'. If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want. It is the same problem I pointed out to Robert Tulip about considering the Bible as allegory. Once you start on that road there is no possibility of consensus. A poem means what it means to the reader and there are no wrong answers. A bible story means what it means to the reader and there are no right or wrong answers. And your selective decoding is as valid as my selective decoding.

Well, that's a myth about the meaning of a poem. There are certainly interpretations that a text supports and ones that it doesn't. Similarly, you can scrutinize any "decoding" on the basis of support from not only the text but other sources. My decoding is not as good as your decoding but must be evaluated. "Selective" is for me simply another word for "judicious,' the opposite of capricious.

DWill wrote:

stahrwe wrote: I am always amazed at the enthusiasm with which you yankees trapse off into the woods on hikes. Here in Florida we don't hike in the woods. There are not that many places where the woods aren't swamp and there are things there that will eat you.

I'm sure Florida has its wonders, but in my one journey down there I just couldn't see what there was to get so excited about. I guess the biodiversity, lacking in the WV mountains, would be what makes it special. But I can see that camping would be more of a challenge there, as you don't generally want to get so close to the biodiversity in that situation.

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

But if you look in the index, Abraham is not slighted. I think you might be misconceiving Wright's purpose in the book. He doesn't in a single instance that I can think of intend to debunk what Christians or Jews believe, though to you he may seem to. He hasn't intended to write a book about what Christians and Jews believe, so he wouldn't discuss the call of Abraham simply because it doesn't have a strong relevance to his main theme.

My concerns regarding the book are summed up well by the author himself on page 102. The last paragraph refers to 'selective decoding of the Bible'. If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want. It is the same problem I pointed out to Robert Tulip about considering the Bible as allegory. Once you start on that road there is no possibility of consensus. A poem means what it means to the reader and there are no wrong answers. A bible story means what it means to the reader and there are no right or wrong answers. And your selective decoding is as valid as my selective decoding.

Well, that's a myth about the meaning of a poem. There are certainly interpretations that a text supports and ones that it doesn't. Similarly, you can scrutinize any "decoding" on the basis of support from not only the text but other sources. My decoding is not as good as your decoding but must be evaluated. "Selective" is for me simply another word for "judicious,' the opposite of capricious.

There are principles of interpreting the Bible. They are called hermeneutics and they are intened to provide a structure to avoid wild speculation. It appears that Mr. Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.

As for Abraham being mentioned in the index. You are correct. However, if you follow the index to the applicable page there is not much there. This is especially frustrating with respect to the index citation: God appears to Abraham. I would expect to see the Genesis story of God's call of Abraham discussed on one of those pages but it itsn't.

There are principles of interpreting the Bible. They are called hermeneutics and they are intened to provide a structure to avoid wild speculation. It appears that Mr. Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.

Your "principles" of hermeneutics are assumptions, axiomatic modes of interpretation. While structured, it is still speculation, and subjective. No better than what Wright does.