Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Just as a point of information, I caught the end of a CNN segment
    on this.  They were interviewing Matthew Fox, who is a member of
    this panel.  Didn't catch what he had to say.  They showed some of
    his books.  Did anyone else see the whole interview?
    
    Carole

    	Interesting. I was home with the family bug for a couple of days
    and started to browse through a tome titled "The Book of J". It
    purports to be an attempt to extract the original writtings that the
    first books of the Bible are based upon. The authors claimed that "J"
    was a female, not religious, of literary stature equal to Shakespeare,
    and wrote her works with great doses of irony. They further claim that
    there were several revisions, the last by "R", the Redactor. The
    pre-textual material - all I managed to get through - suggested that
    the authors were scholars enough to attempt this work. Has anyone read
    it ?

    No, but i'd love to borrow  your copy!
    
    ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    I haven't read it yet, although it is on my list of books to read.  "J"
    is the subject of a lot of interest because it is believed to be the
    first of the four main sources of the Pentateuch that are defined by
    the Documentary Hypothesis (the other ones being P, E, and D, in
    addition to the Redactor).
    
    The idea that J was female is rather interesting; I seem to recall that
    Richard Friedman hinted at that possibility in his wonderful book "Who
    Wrote the Bible" (which I heartily recommend to anyone interested in
    the Documentary Hypothesis).  I don't know what to make of the claims
    of female authorship, but it is definitely interesting to consider.
    
    -- Mike

    Sorry, Bonnie, would if I could. Our library had to get it on loan from
    another library just so my sweetie could get her hands on it. I might
    never have seen it if I hadn't had to rescue it from her grandson - how
    I love to babysit when I'd rather be babied. :-(

    I heard a review of "The Book of J" on NPR months ago and was very
    excited by it -- at first.  However, by the end of the review, which
    I believe quoted both the author and critics, I lost my excitement and
    came to two conclusions: (1) The author took a lot of liberties in his
    translations of the J sections and (2) J may or may not have been female;
    the author doesn't have enough to go on to make a serious hypothesis
    but it's probably good PR and marketing.
    
    Note that I do ascribe to the J, P, etc., understandings of how the
    Bible was written and that I came to those rather disapponting
    conclusions by the end of the review.
    
    
    As to the base note on what Jesus actually said and didn't say, their
    conclusions are not drastically different from those arrived at by
    serious Biblical study of the documents and the times they were
    written.  
    
    I mean, I heard this stuff in college in the late 50's!!  So they
    voted.  Big deal.  Why not spend six years preparing -- or updating --
    a serious scholarly commentary that we can *use*?  (Or did they really
    do that and the voting is all that catches the press's attention?)
    
    Nancy

Indeed, the undermining of the Scriptures has been in vogue for almost
200 years.  The main purpose it serves, that I see, is to divide
Christians trying to follow Jesus.  (It also does provide plenty of
fodder for books, magazine articles, etc.)

Collis

    It also shows who's faith is in God and not in scholarship.
    
    
                               In Christ,
    
                                         Marshall

    Marshall,
    
    Why do you think that people who are inerested in scholarship
    don't have faith in God. God gave me the mind I have and the
    curiosity I have about the world around me and about the
    past, I believe He did so for a reason.
    
    Bonnie

    I find the recent level of religious and faith and human intolerance
    in this file to be totally unacceptable to me.  I think I'll bow out
    for a while.
    
    E Grace
    
    ...a lack of faith in God, simply because I don't hold the bible to be
    inerrant!  INDEED!!!

    E Grace,
    
    Please don't let the occasional negative voice drive you away...
    
    I'd miss you if you left.
    
    Bonnie

    	I think there are some folks who would call GOD a liar if that
    worthy were to impugn the accuracy of their favorite version of the
    Bible. 
    	A couple hundred scriptural authorities, people who know even more
    about the Bible than the best in this conference (who are quite
    knowledgeable in their own right) get together and combine their
    accumulated knowledge of that scripture and someone here has the total
    lack of humility to write them off as without merit ?  To write off
    their scholarship after basing arguments upon their own ?  It might be
    reasonable/sensible/acceptable, were this a one-on-one dispute, but a
    couple vs a couple of hundred ?  More pointedly, a couple with LOCAL
    credentials vs a couple of hundred with NATIONAL credentials ?  I'm not
    trying to say that those couple should just cave in to this mass of
    scholarship, but to simply dismiss it would seem, on the surface, to be
    a rather brazen act.
    	I would like to point out, also, that the question posed was not
    "is this The Word of God", but "was this something Christ said". Most
    of what John passed off as stuff Christ said seems, to these many
    scholars, to be not words Christ uttered. That does not mean that they
    are not "the Word of God", although it casts some doubt on them.

	E Grace! Don't leave! I like having you here! :-)

Hi Dave!

| I think there are some folks who would call GOD a liar if that
| worthy were to impugn the accuracy of their favorite version of the
| Bible.

	Would you care to name names?

| A couple hundred scriptural authorities, people who know even more
| about the Bible than the best in this conference (who are quite
| knowledgeable in their own right) 
| get together and combine their
| accumulated knowledge of that Scripture and someone here has the total
| lack of humility to write them off as without merit ?  To write off
| their scholarship after basing arguments upon their own ?  It might be
| reasonable/sensible/acceptable, were this a one-on-one dispute, but a
| couple vs a couple of hundred ?  More pointedly, a couple with LOCAL
| credentials vs a couple of hundred with NATIONAL credentials ?  

	You seem to forget that there are many people with the same credentials
that you have stated up above that have some serious questions about some of
the areas of the Bible. Do you just disgard them as extremists? 

	Remember all of the times the Bible was wrongly interpreted by
such people and then were used against the very people it was supposed to
help? Let's look at a couple. The Spanish Inquisitions. Now there was a class
act. Slavery. My, how that was so God like. Women being treated like second
class citizens. That's always a good one. Did anyone notice how it could
contradict the love thy neighbor scenario? If I loved my neighbor the way
people were treating women back then, during slavery and anything else the
Bible was WRONGLY interpreted, I'd have no neighbors, would I? One thing
to think about, remember when the movements went on during these "sad events"?
Remember how they started off as being small and built up over time? Remember
how in time, it was discovered that what the scholars and such actually
believed in were wrong? My, I wonder what would happen if we applied this
scenario to homosexuality? We have some Christians (the extremists as some call
them, others may use radicals, please insert the word that best fits your
situation) who believe that what we are doing may not be wrong, only because
people wonder just who wrote the Bible or they may have other reasons as well
(many churches wouldn't open their doors for us if this were not true, right?).
True, they are a small percentage of Christians, but they exist. I would
imagine this is similar to how it started for the people who were against the
"sad events" that I have mentioned.

| I'm not
| trying to say that those couple should just cave in to this mass of
| scholarship, but to simply dismiss it would seem, on the surface, to be
| a rather brazen act.

	Well, you have based your whole defense on these people with their
scholarships and such. That was ALL you put. How could we think you weren't
basing your whole defense on this?

| I would like to point out, also, that the question posed was not
| "is this The Word of God", but "was this something Christ said". Most
| of what John passed off as stuff Christ said seems, to these many
| scholars, to be not words Christ uttered. That does not mean that they
| are not "the Word of God", although it casts some doubt on them.

	Hmmmm.... interesting. So, John has passed words off that some might
not feel came from Christ Himself. Gee, that would mean the human side of John
inspired the words. It would also mean that if one book can have doubts that it
was Christ inspired, others could have used the same "free will" that John
used. Wouldn't you think so? You see, I've been told that either the whole
Bible is to be true, or the whole thing is false. My honest opinion on this is
that yes, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit did talk with the authors about the
things they wrote. It is also my belief that the authors, being human, could
have written in their own interpretations of what God actually said. If there
is doubt in the book of John, then we will also have to doubt the other books
as well. After all, Christians keep saying, all or nothing!


Glen

    Hi, Glen.
    	Guess what, you misunderstood what I was saying. At least that's
    what I THINK happened. Or did I misunderstand YOU ?
    	Let me make my position clear. Again. I do not place a great deal
    of belief in the Bible. My belief is in the spirit of the teachings of
    the philosopher we know of as Jesus Christ. This belief makes me a very
    different breed of christian than, oh, Collis - for example. I try to
    discuss things using terms and frameworks used by those I'm debating,
    but that's all.
    	My .12 (I think that's the number) was intended to point out to
    some of the more conservative members here that they might well
    dispute, on a point by point basis, any or all of the findings of the
    Conference (.0) but that they should not simply try to dismiss the
    findings as they might if someone with my level of scholarship
    presented them. Belief is all well and good, faith is perhaps required,
    but total suspension of disbelief - beyond a willingness to find
    resaonable explanations (as I offered) - is what a con man seeks. I
    don't view Christ as a con man.
    	And no, I would not care to name any of those I think might fight
    even God over the specific and special validity of, say, the KJV.

    E Grace,
    
    	In this conference, your Christian perspective need not be based
    on a foundation entirely congruent with another Christian's perspective.
    
    Praying you remain,
    Richard

It is true that I dismiss their claims because their claims are contradicted
by the Bible itself which claims to be the inerrant Word of God.

It is not that I have no respect for the scholars, but it is that I have
no respect for work that takes as a basic premise that the Biblical
claims are wrong.  No matter how excellent the work, the logic, the
reason, the research, the devotion to finding the answer, it is all
useless if it starts out foundationally on an incorrect premise.

The premise I am talking about has been accepted and supported ever
since Scripture was first written.  It is not a premise to be dismissed
and flatly contradicted lightly.  In fact, it is a premise which I am
convinced is true and has been proven true time and time again.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    > It is not that I have no respect for the scholars, but it is that I
    have no respect for work that takes as a basic premise that the
    Biblical claims are wrong. <
    
    I believe these scholars, by and large, are people who are interested in
    finding out the truth about Bible authorship, Collis.  I don't believe 
    that the basic premise of their study was that Bible claims are wrong. 
    I think it was more objective study than what you imply.
    
    Karen

| It is not that I have no respect for the scholars, but it is that I have
| no respect for work that takes as a basic premise that the Biblical
| claims are wrong.  No matter how excellent the work, the logic, the
| reason, the research, the devotion to finding the answer, it is all
| useless if it starts out foundationally on an incorrect premise.

	But the only correct premise is of those who went out to use the same
methods that the scholars of today used, but they were out to seek the truth. I
wonder if maybe they only put in what they thought might be true when they
studied and translated the Bible? Gee Collis, you may have stumbled onto
something.

Glen

    "The premise I am talking about has been accepted and supported since
    scripture was first written."
    	Is that a fact ?  Seems to me that a lot of stuff that was once
    accepted and supported as scripture has been tossed out. And not all
    Christian sects use the same texts as scripture. Care to discuss
    scripture according to the Eastern (Greek, Russian) Orthodoxies ?  What
    about the supposed "Book of J" which is theorized to have been the
    original manuscript (and lost for millenia) from which ancient
    scripture was derived ?  If that hypothesis is correct then everything
    you revere in the OT is nothing but a re-write of earlier works.
    	Are you not willing to grant even the possibility that "John" may
    not be textual quotes from Christ ?  Not even while maintaining that it
    is the words of God erroneously or falsely attributed to Christ ?  The
    fact is, Collis, that refusing to consider - not to accept, but just to
    consider - the implications of the Conference ties you to a past that
    never existed except in the minds of like-minded people.

It is quite true, Dave, that people have denied the claims of the Bible
for as long as the claims have been made.  What I was trying to say
(and perhaps said it poorly) is that many, often most believers (and
organizations of believers) have accepted this claim.

Collis

Dave,

>    	Let me make my position clear. Again. I do not place a great deal
>   of belief in the Bible.

	So why do you make such a fuss over it?

	Have you accepted everything that this group (.0) concluded?

	Really.

ace

    ace,
    	the question has little to do with what I have or have not
    accepted. Someone commented that the people in .0 were wrong, that
    their scholarship was unacceptable and that they had done nothing worth
    considering. I countered with the argument that the group in .0 MIGHT
    be all those things but that their scholarship demanded that their work
    be considered, if only to be rejected. Then it seemed that my comment
    was understood to support those who would reject the work out of hand.
    My response, which you quoted, tried to set that straight.
    	Why make a fuss over what ?  Making my position clear ?  Because I
    would not want to be misunderstood. Over the accuracy of the Bible ? 
    Because it is my best source for learning the teachings of Christ, whom
    I consider to be a great teacher and philosopher. About the rejecting
    of a scholarly work without studying it because it might force you to
    re-evaluate your framework ?  Because that is a sign of weakness and
    lack of faith. If your belief is true then it can only be improved by
    such a challenge - even if you accept the challenge as correct, because
    then your faith has an even stronger base. 
    	What business is it of yours to challenge an attempt at clarity ?

Note 175.21

ace,

	Dave is responding legitimately when expressing his perspective.

	Personally, I'm surprised at how little the findings of the Jesus
Seminar bother me.  Even if every one of the findings were true, it hasn't
affected my faith, which, not unlike Dave's, is not heavily anchored in the
Bible.

	I've always been curious about why the author of the Gospel of John
deviated so profoundly from the Synoptic Gospels.  All I ever got for an
answer was a plank from the party platform. ;-}

	According to a Noter in ::RELIGION, it's all self-delusion, anyway.
;-}
Richard

Dave,

>I countered with the argument that the group in .0 MIGHT
>    be all those things but that their scholarship demanded that their work
>    be considered, if only to be rejected.

Demanded huh?

There are several important items here I would like to check with you. Exactly 
what are the credentials of the scholars involved? Anyone can claim to be a 
scholar, but since you insist that their scholarship "demands" that we consider
their work, we must then understand their "scholarship". So, help us understand
why you consider them scholars. Secondly, what is the motivation of these folks?
This too is important to understand in order to determine why they "voted" the
way they did. What was the composition of the group? What percentage male and
female, ethnicity, education, where educated? What religious affilation did
they represent? Also, how were the questions developed? Can we be certain that 
the questions themselves are free from bias and slant? How were the questions
posed? A raise of hands? A secret ballot? These all matter very much to the
outcome. Did the scholars receive payment for their labor? Did this influence
their voting? There are many questions like this that must answered before
any serious consideration of the work could be undertaken.

I seriously doubt that you or I could answer these questions without a great 
deal of research. Have you conducted such a research? If not, why do you suggest
that the "work" must be considered because their "scholarship demands" it? Why
should anyone accept a "work" under claim of "scholarship" without first being
certain of the "scholarship".

If I present to you a list of scholars, will you consider their work too?


ace

re.23

Richard,


> Dave is responding legitimately when expressing his perspective.

	Of course he is! That's what this notes conference is about, right?
I'm merely seeking clarity on his perspective.

	Actually, the findings of these folks bother none at all. There are too
may unanswered questions before the "work" can be taken seriously.


regards,
ace

    ace,
    	I asked a couple of "religious" about the group. Their attitudes
    varied. Common to each was the agreement that a number of those
    involved were well respected in the field, that they came from various
    denominations and that they were not being paid to discredit the NT.
    	I did not say that their scholarship demands that you, or anyone,
    agree with them. Only that you consider their work before disregarding
    it. You have someone you want me to consider before I disregard ? 
    Fine. No problem.
    	Funny, you seem intent on discrediting the work of the Seminar yet
    your questions in .24 suggest that you don't know anything about it
    beyond what you read here. 

 re.26

Dave, 

>  	Funny, you seem intent on discrediting the work of the Seminar yet
>    your questions in .24 suggest that you don't know anything about it
>    beyond what you read here.

	Let see if I understand you clearly. You think that I am discrediting
the Seminar because I ask basic research questions about the people involved or
the process used to derive their conclusions?

>    	I did not say that their scholarship demands that you, or anyone,
>   agree with them. Only that you consider their work before disregarding
>    it.

	Right, I know. And why should I consider their work seriously, without
understanding the basis, paradigms, and circumstances upon which they developed
their conclusions? I'm wondering, why do you? Or do you? Or at least, why do you
suggest to others that they should? 

ace

    ace,
    	perhaps it only SOUNDED like you felt the work of no value before
    you asked those valid questions. Perhaps you did not intend to sound
    that way. But you did. Before making any inquiry into the
    qualifications of those involved.
    	No, I do not feel that I have adequately presented the credentials
    of the group. Why not mention the project to a religious leader of your
    own choosing as that person should be better versed than I and would
    certainly be someone you consider a greater authority than I. Ditto for
    Collis, Marshall and any other who feels the need to know, ask someone
    YOU trust.

Dave,


>    	No, I do not feel that I have adequately presented the credentials
>    of the group.

Presenting the qualifications of the group adequately and knowing them 
adequately are two different things. You can know for yourself the credentials
of the group and then you may able to present the information to others. But
it is less likely that you could effectively (perhaps to influence) present
something that you yourself do not know.

Case before us. You seem to be intent on influencing others to accept the "work"
of this group of people, but I doubt that you yourself know their 
qualifications or the process of the proceedings (ref .24). Right? If that is
right, then why do you suggest that others should "consider their work before
disregarding it" when you yourself do not know the elements upon which the
work is based? 

>Why not mention the project to a religious leader of your
>    own choosing as that person should be better versed than I and would
>    certainly be someone you consider a greater authority than I.

Why should I? Really. I want to know, why it seems that you keep insisting on
others investing their time and resources and the energy of others (i.e.
religious leaders) in consideration of this "work". 

ace

    ace,
    	I have not advocated that anyone accept the findings of this group.
    Re-read my entries. My argument has been aimed at the need for a
    minimal understanding of that which you would reject. Religious people
    that I respect - my minister, among others - has vouched for the
    essential qualifications of the group. Neither they nor I have read the
    entire findings and I don't know that I accept them, but I have not
    rejected them.
    	Why should you inquire of your minister regarding the
    qualifications of the group ?  Why not ?  It is possible that this
    group has helped refine the truth, to purify that which we know as "the
    word of God". Or maybe not. 

Dave,

>Neither they nor I have read the
>    entire findings and I don't know that I accept them, but I have not
>    rejected them.

I think I understand. You would not accept or reject a "work" without having
considered the "work" enough to satisfactory yourself. There is some
level of understanding that will give you a comfort level to form your own
opinion about the group and its findings.

Do you respect others right to the same? Do you think it is alright for me to
accept or reject something to my satisfaction? 

>   	Why should you inquire of your minister regarding the
>    qualifications of the group ?  Why not ? 

Because human life is measured, and I do not wish to spend my time or others
time researching this one. There is not enough information for me to get
interested. 

ace

Dave,

Thanks for your "cordial" off line message 8*) 8*).

I respect your right to engage or not in this discussion. Understanding where
other people are coming from is like peeling an onion. Eventually you deal with
core beliefs and not everybody is comfortable with that.

I don't have enough information to draw conclusions, but enough to float a 
hypothesis... You have not accepted or rejected the work of this seminar. And
you will not do so until you have more information. You know what information
you need to make a conclusion. You object to others accepting or rejecting
the seminar work on their own information. For instance, Collis rejected the
seminar work based upon his belief that the seminar forum had a basic premise
that the Biblical claims are wrong (.16). You objected to this in .19, but 
apparently it was enough for Collis to decide. Also Marshall (.8) takes a basis
for rejection that is apparently foreign to your paradigm (faith not 
scholarship). It's not clear that your response in .12 and .14 were targeted for
Marshall but from the statement "Belief is all well and good, faith is perhaps 
required but total suspension of disbelief..." I infer that you were objecting 
to his basis of rejection. As for me, I was willing to "consider" the seminar 
work based upon your vehement recommendation (.19) only if you as the
recommendor know what you are recommending. But since you weren't certain of the
of the most basic of questions about the seminar, then I'm remain unconvinced 
and am unwilling to waste time researching the matter.

I did consider it important to gain clarity on your thought process and you
mine, but I recognize that not everyone is comfortable with that and I respect
your right to bow out.

ace

Re: .32  Ace

>As for me, I was willing to "consider" the seminar 
>work based upon your vehement recommendation (.19) only if you as the
>recommendor know what you are recommending. But since you weren't certain of the
>of the most basic of questions about the seminar, then I'm remain unconvinced 
>and am unwilling to waste time researching the matter.

"The most basic of questions"?  Come on, Ace.  For Dave to have answered your
questions about the seminar he would have practically had to have been one of
the participants.

				-- Bob

re.33

	Not really. He could find out most of those answers from the 
coordinators, or perhaps there are proceedings notes. And they are the most
basic of questions.

ace

Ace,

I think most people reading your reply .24 would not agree that they are
"the most basic of questions".  Many of your questions go beyond the kinds of
things that would be covered in the conference procedings.

However, far be it from me to pick a quarrel. ;^)

				-- Bob

re.35

>I think most people reading your reply .24 would not agree that they are
>"the most basic of questions".

Which "most people"?  8*)

>However, far be it from me to pick a quarrel. ;^)

You? Quarrel? Why the thought barely crossed my mind!  8*)

ace

    Gee, ace, *I* wouldn't have described it as "cordial". "Civil",
    perhaps. Yes, "civil" would be a nice, politic term which accurately
    describes it.
    	OK, let's start at the very beginning, just one more time.
    
    On 7-Mar "Mike" entered a news item from a computer news feed. It said,
    in part, that a CONTROVERSIAL group of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS has concluded
    six years of voting by ruling that about 80% of the words attributed in
    the Gospels to Jesus were probably made up by later authors. The group,
    the Jesus Seminar, is described as being a 200-member group of MAINLINE
    BIBLICAL SCHOLARS from around the country.
    
    On 11-Mar Collis remarked that the undermining of the Scriptures has
    been in vogue for almost 200 years and that the main purpose it serves,
    in his opinion, is to divide Christians trying to follow Jesus.
    Same day Marshall said "It also shows who's faith is in God and not in
    scholarship.
    
    On 12-Mar I entered a 175.12 which advocated giving the report a chance
    before dismissing it. Collis has pretty good credentials for a lay
    person and has not kept them a secret. Having those credentials yet
    discrediting those of others seemed inappropriate - "a rather brazen
    act". 
    Same day Glen came back with a long challenging message which seems to
    have been based on misunderstanding. 
    SAME day I got back to him (175.14) and seem to have answered him.
    
    On 13-Mar Collis brought up inerrancy and claimed that it had been
    accepted and supported since Scripture was first written.
    Same day I challenged this, pointing out that there have been various
    shifts in what constitutes "Scripture" over the centuries and that even
    today not all Christians agree on the same texts.
    
    On 14-Mar Collis accepted my comment with a re-phrase that I let stand.
    
    Then, on 19-Mar, you challenged my 12-Mar entry to Glen. You asked why
    I made such a fuss over "it". You asked if I accepted everything the
    Seminar concluded. Then you said "Really."
    	It took you a week to respond ?  Could you not have defined "it" a
    little more completely ?
    SAME day I responded. I restated that my position was only that the
    work deserved to be examined before being disregarded. I attempted to
    find out what "it" was that I was making a fuss over.
    
    20-Mar you came back and requested the credentials of the study
    members. All 200 of them. You suggested that it was MY judgement that
    they were scholars. You wanted to know their motivation. How am I to
    know that ?  You wanted a statistical breakdown by gender, ethnic
    origin, education and religious affiliation. You even wanted to know
    how the voting took place !  A question answered in .0 !  Then you ask
    if I would consider the works of a list of scholars you would present
    to me. Nice "red herring", that one.
    Same day I replied that I had asked some "religious" about the group
    and recieved confirmation of their credentials. "Religious" is a term
    Catholics and some others apply to priests, nuns, ministers and the
    like. I restated that all I was suggesting was consideration, not
    agreement. I also commented on your obvious intent to discredit the
    seminar, knowing nothing about it.
    Same day you replied, restating your earlier message in general terms.
    Again, same day I replied and admitted that I had not fully answered
    your detailed question regarding the statistical breakdown of the
    members of the Seminar.
    
    21-Mar you suggested that I SHOULD know those details and accused me of
    attempting to influence others to accept the findings of the Seminar.
    You also accused me of insisting that others invest "time and resources
    and energy" in consideration of this "work"(the quotes on "work" yours)
    Same day I replied that you were mistaken and wondered why you should
    not expend some of your time etc on information that might have major
    importance to you, if accurate.
    
    21-Mar you came back yet again to accost me on checking sources for
    you. This might not be so silly except that I have not the slightest
    reason to believe that my providing the credentials you requested would
    do any more than change your mode of denial. Worse, I believe that my
    acceptance of any part of the results of the Seminar would convince you
    of its inauthenticity. However, THEN you have the absolute GALL to tell
    me that you don't have the time to ask your minister about the group,
    briefly and in passing, "because human life is measured,". You do
    realize, I hope, that you have wasted more of your time and my time in
    this pointless discussion than it would have taken for you to call your
    minister and ask "These guys, are they for real ?  What should I think
    about their results ?". 
    
    So, stop yanking my chain over this. Find yourself another hobby to
    beat to insensibility. If you are going to ask question, try to follow
    the chain of discussion at least well enough that you don't make silly
    accusations that can be easily refuted by referencing the previous
    three notes. Try not to ask dumb questions that are obviously covered
    in the base note. I'm tired of trying to be reasonable with you about
    this. Let's move on to another topic.

re.37

Dave,

>So, stop yanking my chain over this.

Define "yanking my chain"... 8*)

Seriously though. You have misunderstood me. Understanding where one is coming
from is sometimes more important than the words themselves. That requires that
we think about the way we think (no typo). I hope you understand, that this is
my perspective. 

relax,
ace

Re: .36  Ace

>>I think most people reading your reply .24 would not agree that they are
>>"the most basic of questions".
>
>Which "most people"?  8*)

I suppose you'd like me to give you their credentials, motivation, composition
by sex, ethnicity, education, and religious affiliation, and whether they made
their opinions known by a show of the hands or by a secret ballot... :-)

				-- Bob

re.39 Bob


>I suppose you'd like me to give you their credentials, motivation, composition
>by sex, ethnicity, education, and religious affiliation, and whether they made
>their opinions known by a show of the hands or by a secret ballot... :-)

For openers...   8*) 8*)

ace

Just for the record,

I have heard of this group over the years as they have persued their
work.  I do not question either their credentials or their "scholarship".
What I question is their presupposition.

There is not a single scholar out of the 200 who accepts the Biblical
claim of the inerrency of Scripture (to the best of my knowledge).

They have presupposed (in my opinion) that God did not breathe Scripture
and, because of this, I dismiss their conclusions.

I have no comment on their work given that their presupposition should
stand (for example, in a hypothetical case :-) ).

Collis

    Collis,
    	yes, I understood this. However, when you are re-capping a
    discussion you need to recap the whole thing, not just this or that
    conclusion. When I understood your position, I quit the debate. It only
    came up again because of ace.
    	I still think you ought to consider that the Seminar was
    considering whether the reported words were uttered by Christ or not.
    They were NOT considering if they were "the word of God". But you are
    most certainly correct in your belief that, at least at the end of the
    effort, none of the participants believed in the inerrancy of the Bible
    in the same way you do.

    Collis
    
    If some of the researchers started out believing in the inerancy
    of the Bible but as they studied the subject came to believe that
    it was not, would that invalidate them as authorities for you?
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

I would not claim that they are not "authorities", only that they are
not accurate in the field that they have authority over (if you're willing
to make that distinction with me).

There are many authorities I disagree completely with in a number of
fields.  There are many others that I agree with.  I would define someone
as an authority not based on the validity of their conclusions, but rather
based on their knowledge and work in their field. 

By the way, I think this is worth mentioning at this point.  The framework
that I have accepted (for now) as true is foundational to whether or not
I believe what others claim.  This, in general, is not only true for me
but for all people.  It is exactly because of their framework (modified
to some extent by the most recent evidence and discussions that have had)
that these scholars have reached their decision.  It is not, as I see
it, that one of us is more close-minded than the other (theirs in their
belief and mine in my belief), rather it is that I freely bring up the
cause of our disagreement (which is a different framework) and they left
their framework relatively unstated in proposing their conclusions.

As in most issues, the truth of our framework is foundational to reaching
the truth in a particular issue.

Collis