You are forgetting one thing. The response to Millard, Kitchen, Provan, Long, etc. is always, "They are fundamentalist, therefore what they say is not right."
Wait and see the ignorance will begin to role like the waters in the New Jersusalem.
"The response to Millard, Kitchen, Provan, Long, etc. is always, "They are fundamentalist, therefore what they say is not right."
Big Al,
"But isn't this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch.' When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use); it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'."
So I finally had a bit of time to look at some of your referrals.
Do you guys even read the stuff you link to?
I have to chuckle. This quote is from the 8th paragraph of your referral:
It is now clear that the cuneiform tablet that Smith published preserved traditions about Sargon of Akkad that were circulating a thousand years before the Nineveh texts were copied.
Bang. Your source that you are referring people to prove your point confirms unequivocally my point of priority of the Sargon legend. Yet you guys argued yourselves blue that this could not have been true.
Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?
In addition, the author does not address Israeli archeology that shows the Exodus could not have happened.
But hey, you guys remain a source of mirth that keeps on giving.
I think your site is one of the best apologetic sites on the internet because you show quite clearly how true believers operate.
"Evan confuses the date of Sargon with the date of the legend."
We have also argued that you cannot show literary dependance, EVEN IF the legend was written BEFORE Ex. 2! You need to ESTABLISH that rather than say:
[1] Written before,
[2] Therefore dependant
In fact, I asked you to demonstrate the logic of this point and am still awaiting a response.
So, you not even in the same ballpark as the critiques you've been given.
Do you not read critiques of your position but hand out "rebuttals" regardless?
I've tried to keep my cool with you, but you're a first rate hack. It's even worse with all your high school football player bravado. When you act like a cocky, arrogant bad-a, you better be able to back it up, otherwise you just look like a doofus.
Indeed, the paper cited states:
"What of the birth legend of Sargon? It is hardly likely that documentation of this will appear."
So, you now look like complete fool. What was it that you said?:
"Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?"
Do you just find a sentence you like, refer people to it, and fail to read the rest of the article?
really, Evan, haven't you been bloodied and beaten enough over here...tales of your victory aside.
In addition, you did not address my arguments against the Evan Myth.
But hey, you remain a source of mirth that keeps on giving.
I think your comments are one of the best anti-apologetic comments on the internet because you show quite clearly how true believers operate.
This link, by the way, is on that site. You know, when I'm directed to a website, before I say an author doesn't address something, I actually try to search through the material. Perhaps you should adopt a similar policy.
Tell us, Evan, do you pay attention to what you write, or are your fingers autonomous with regard to higher cortical functions?
“So I finally had a bit of time to look at some of your referrals.__Do you guys even read the stuff you link to?… Bang. Your source that you are referring people to prove your point confirms unequivocally my point of priority of the Sargon legend. Yet you guys argued yourselves blue that this could not have been true.__Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?”
Since you’re incapable of reading for yourself, let’s spell it out for you. Millard makes the following observations:
1.” Some scholars suggested that the story was written to glorify him. Indeed, a few scholars still maintain this position…Gaston Maspero supposed that the Legend of Sargon projects the deeds of Sargon II into a remote past and says nothing about an earlier king (The Dawn of Civilisation [London: SPCK, 1885]), p. 599. See Lewis, Sargon Legend, pp. 101–107, for a similar view.”
Remember Avalos telling us that Brian Lewis wrote the “most important study of the Sargon legend”? But Lewis dates the Sargon legend to the reign of Sargon II. That would postdate Exodus. Get it?
That also means that Lewis and Hoffmeier both agree on the date of the legend. Get it?
2.” However, the absence of Aramaic, Persian or Greek influence in grammar and vocabulary of the sort visible in the books that are dated by obvious criteria after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.) makes it likely that the Exodus text is earlier.”
So the extant text of Exodus antedates the Babylonian Exile. And the extant text has been updated by scribes to eliminate archaic forms. So the Urtext would be earlier than the extant text. That would knock the dating scheme of the Documentary hypothesis out of the running. Get it?
3.” What of the birth legend of Sargon? It is hardly likely that documentation of this will appear. The story is one common in various forms in folklore and is obviously comparable to the story of Moses in the bulrushes. Before we dismiss either or both as fiction, however, we should note that Babylonia and Egypt are both riverine cultures and that putting the baby in a waterproof basket might be a slightly more satisfactory way to dispose of an infant than throwing it on the rubbish heap, which was more usual. Today unwanted babies are frequently dumped on hospital doorsteps or in other public places in the hope that they will be rescued. The story of the foundling rising to eminence may be a motif of folklore, but that is surely because it is a story that occurs repeatedly in real life.”
Does Millard take the position that the birth of Moses is a fictitious account which is literarily dependent on the legend of Sargon? No. He says there’s good reason to believe that both accounts have a basis in real life events. Get it?
4.You continue to equivocate over the content of the Sargon legend. Are you playing dumb or are you really that dumb? As even Avalos admitted, the Sargon legend underwent internal development. Therefore, not every element or motif in later stages of the legend occurs in earlier stages of the legend.
Millard himself draws that very distinction. He says that some of the traditions antedate the later text. But when it comes to the birth of Sargon, he demurs.
Try to master the elementary distinction between general information and specific claims.
5.For the third time I’ll point out to you that when you dismiss secondhand information as hearsay information, you thereby forfeit the right to invoke archeology. What is it about that thick skull of yours that renders you incapable of absorbing the implications of your own stated position, even after someone else points it out to you?
If you’re going to invoke archeology, then you must retract your dismissal of secondhand info. as hearsay. Try not to keep raising the same brain-dead objections over and over again.
6.Feel free to tell us why you think the Exodus “could not have happened.”
"In fact, I asked you to demonstrate the logic of this point and am still awaiting a response."
A lot of us are still awaiting Evan's responses to our refutations of his many false claims. He continues to make unsupported and false claims and continues to act as if he's winning debates that he's already lost. It's rare to come across somebody whose portrayal of reality is so distant from what's actually occurred. I think Evan has earned his place on the Debunking Christianity staff.
Evan, sheesh, give it a rest. If this were a boxing match, they would have stopped it in the first round. If this were a little league game, they would have called the mercy rule. If that's all you got, then I suggest you go home.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYou are forgetting one thing. The response to Millard, Kitchen, Provan, Long, etc. is always, "They are fundamentalist, therefore what they say is not right."
Wait and see the ignorance will begin to role like the waters in the New Jersusalem.
Blake
gatesofsplendor,
ReplyDelete"The response to Millard, Kitchen, Provan, Long, etc. is always, "They are fundamentalist, therefore what they say is not right."
Big Al,
"But isn't this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch.' When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use); it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'."
-- Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245
So I finally had a bit of time to look at some of your referrals.
ReplyDeleteDo you guys even read the stuff you link to?
I have to chuckle. This quote is from the 8th paragraph of your referral:
It is now clear that the cuneiform tablet that Smith published preserved traditions about Sargon of Akkad that were circulating a thousand years before the Nineveh texts were copied.
Bang. Your source that you are referring people to prove your point confirms unequivocally my point of priority of the Sargon legend. Yet you guys argued yourselves blue that this could not have been true.
Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?
In addition, the author does not address Israeli archeology that shows the Exodus could not have happened.
But hey, you guys remain a source of mirth that keeps on giving.
I think your site is one of the best apologetic sites on the internet because you show quite clearly how true believers operate.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteSteve previously wrote to you:
"Evan confuses the date of Sargon with the date of the legend."
We have also argued that you cannot show literary dependance, EVEN IF the legend was written BEFORE Ex. 2! You need to ESTABLISH that rather than say:
[1] Written before,
[2] Therefore dependant
In fact, I asked you to demonstrate the logic of this point and am still awaiting a response.
So, you not even in the same ballpark as the critiques you've been given.
Do you not read critiques of your position but hand out "rebuttals" regardless?
I've tried to keep my cool with you, but you're a first rate hack. It's even worse with all your high school football player bravado. When you act like a cocky, arrogant bad-a, you better be able to back it up, otherwise you just look like a doofus.
Indeed, the paper cited states:
"What of the birth legend of Sargon? It is hardly likely that documentation of this will appear."
So, you now look like complete fool. What was it that you said?:
"Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?"
Do you just find a sentence you like, refer people to it, and fail to read the rest of the article?
really, Evan, haven't you been bloodied and beaten enough over here...tales of your victory aside.
In addition, you did not address my arguments against the Evan Myth.
But hey, you remain a source of mirth that keeps on giving.
I think your comments are one of the best anti-apologetic comments on the internet because you show quite clearly how true believers operate.
In addition, the author does not address Israeli archeology that shows the Exodus could not have happened.
ReplyDeleteWhat particular archeology do you have in mind, Evan?
Would it be any that's contained in the articles he's posted at this link:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Exodus%2C_1300-1200_BCE
This link, by the way, is on that site. You know, when I'm directed to a website, before I say an author doesn't address something, I actually try to search through the material. Perhaps you should adopt a similar policy.
Tell us, Evan, do you pay attention to what you write, or are your fingers autonomous with regard to higher cortical functions?
Like I said, the Ignorance has begun to role. Evan is here. He cannot grasp a simple logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteblake
EVAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“So I finally had a bit of time to look at some of your referrals.__Do you guys even read the stuff you link to?… Bang. Your source that you are referring people to prove your point confirms unequivocally my point of priority of the Sargon legend. Yet you guys argued yourselves blue that this could not have been true.__Do you just find a reference with a title you like, fail to read it and then refer people to it?”
Since you’re incapable of reading for yourself, let’s spell it out for you. Millard makes the following observations:
1.” Some scholars suggested that the story was written to glorify him. Indeed, a few scholars still maintain this position…Gaston Maspero supposed that the Legend of Sargon projects the deeds of Sargon II into a remote past and says nothing about an earlier king (The Dawn of Civilisation [London: SPCK, 1885]), p. 599. See Lewis, Sargon Legend, pp. 101–107, for a similar view.”
Remember Avalos telling us that Brian Lewis wrote the “most important study of the Sargon legend”? But Lewis dates the Sargon legend to the reign of Sargon II. That would postdate Exodus. Get it?
That also means that Lewis and Hoffmeier both agree on the date of the legend. Get it?
2.” However, the absence of Aramaic, Persian or Greek influence in grammar and vocabulary of the sort visible in the books that are dated by obvious criteria after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.) makes it likely that the Exodus text is earlier.”
So the extant text of Exodus antedates the Babylonian Exile. And the extant text has been updated by scribes to eliminate archaic forms. So the Urtext would be earlier than the extant text. That would knock the dating scheme of the Documentary hypothesis out of the running. Get it?
3.” What of the birth legend of Sargon? It is hardly likely that documentation of this will appear. The story is one common in various forms in folklore and is obviously comparable to the story of Moses in the bulrushes. Before we dismiss either or both as fiction, however, we should note that Babylonia and Egypt are both riverine cultures and that putting the baby in a waterproof basket might be a slightly more satisfactory way to dispose of an infant than throwing it on the rubbish heap, which was more usual. Today unwanted babies are frequently dumped on hospital doorsteps or in other public places in the hope that they will be rescued. The story of the foundling rising to eminence may be a motif of folklore, but that is surely because it is a story that occurs repeatedly in real life.”
Does Millard take the position that the birth of Moses is a fictitious account which is literarily dependent on the legend of Sargon? No. He says there’s good reason to believe that both accounts have a basis in real life events. Get it?
4.You continue to equivocate over the content of the Sargon legend. Are you playing dumb or are you really that dumb? As even Avalos admitted, the Sargon legend underwent internal development. Therefore, not every element or motif in later stages of the legend occurs in earlier stages of the legend.
Millard himself draws that very distinction. He says that some of the traditions antedate the later text. But when it comes to the birth of Sargon, he demurs.
Try to master the elementary distinction between general information and specific claims.
5.For the third time I’ll point out to you that when you dismiss secondhand information as hearsay information, you thereby forfeit the right to invoke archeology. What is it about that thick skull of yours that renders you incapable of absorbing the implications of your own stated position, even after someone else points it out to you?
If you’re going to invoke archeology, then you must retract your dismissal of secondhand info. as hearsay. Try not to keep raising the same brain-dead objections over and over again.
6.Feel free to tell us why you think the Exodus “could not have happened.”
The poster with the screen name I has written:
ReplyDelete"In fact, I asked you to demonstrate the logic of this point and am still awaiting a response."
A lot of us are still awaiting Evan's responses to our refutations of his many false claims. He continues to make unsupported and false claims and continues to act as if he's winning debates that he's already lost. It's rare to come across somebody whose portrayal of reality is so distant from what's actually occurred. I think Evan has earned his place on the Debunking Christianity staff.
Evan, sheesh, give it a rest. If this were a boxing match, they would have stopped it in the first round. If this were a little league game, they would have called the mercy rule. If that's all you got, then I suggest you go home.
ReplyDelete