[b-hebrew] Documentary Hypothesis
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 22:36:14 EST 2009
Are you sure you are not over reacting? Are you sure you even understood
what was said?
particular under "Practical examples", looking at the second example, which
one fits George Athas? And while I intended no personal slight, how would
you react to his statement? Did I misunderstand him, or was his description
similar to that of a "moderate" given in the example, which was shown in the
example as having a very different religion than held by a "conservative" in
those church bodies? One lists a formal interpretation, the other a
functional understanding. The formal analysis allows him to claim that he
had not changed his religion, while the functional analysis, looking at the
actions behind the words, would say that he has converted from one religion
to another. But again, this is but an interpretation of his statement, so
could be the result of a misunderstanding. So how would you describe his
statement, and why? Do you follow form or function?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Bill Rea
<bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>wrote:
> Karl wrote in respond to a post by George Athas:
> >In other words, what you did was to step outside of the ideology taught
> >by the Bible, then judged the Bible based on a different ideology. Then
> >you said that the Biblical record is improbable based on the
> >presuppositions inherent in this other religious faith that you now
> >embrace. That's how I read the above paragraphs. Correct me if you think
> >I am wrong.
> I get the digest so don't know if George has corrected you, but this
> paragraph is absurd.
How so? Please explain. And, oh yes, do refer to the links and ideas with
which I answered Gabe a few hours back.
> You use the words -- religion, science, observation,
> evidence, mainstream and probably a whole lot of others in a non-standard
Other than "religion", which of the other terms you list do I use in a
non-standard way, and how? How are they non-standard? Or is it you who uses
them in a non-standard way? (Did you see my response to Gabe?)
Even my use of "religion" I repeatedly mention why I use it in the way I do,
and even there my use is not unique, just according to function rather than
form. Why is that so confusing?
> You have, in the past, got quite nasty with those, such as myself,
Yes, I inherited some of that 16th century sensibilities when I embraced
Reformation theology, along with some of its sharp edges, but would you
agree that I moderated some of those sharp edges more recently?
> who have pointed out that your usage does not match that of the vast
> majority of English speaking peoples and is a source of confusion.
I understand you, why do you have such trouble understanding me?
> This list is supposed to work according to scholarly principles. If
> you fundamentally disagree with the way scholars work then this
> list is not the place to be. People of faith can and do work according
> to scientific methods.
And I don't? How so?
> This does not mean they've abandoned their
> faith to become adherants of philosophical rationalism or naturalism
> or some other such mumbo-jumbo and you ought to know it by now.
And where do you get the idea that I make such claims? Is it based on your
own misunderstanding of science and philosophy/religion?
> I think you ought to apologise for posting such offensive material.
I posted my response to his statement without making any personal attacks,
just saying that this is how I understood his statement, and you took
offence. Now you respond making personal attacks, and I am not to take
offence? Should I demand an apology, or should I develop a thick skin and
let those personal attacks slide, like water off a duck's back?
> Bill Rea, Ph.D. ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz </ New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator (/'
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew