First Person: Bible and Archaeology

[RamboPreacher]

Bottom line in my mind: It's one thing to state that Noah and Moses did not exist; One has a right to hold that opinion.

as long as it is stated as opinion, and not presented as an apriori fact.

[rumplesnitz]

Awwww.... that rabbit was jist startin' to run...

[RamboPreacher]

Awwww.... that rabbit was jist startin' to run...

oh, sorry.  i'll let it go.  it is obviously a pet peve of mine that people are so disrespectful that they assume to impose what everyone else should "know".

[rumplesnitz]

Not you, RP, I was replyin' to the moderator herding us back on track from our little jaunt off the main trail into astrology-land...

[Michael]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the original post anymore...

Bottom line in my mind: It's one thing to state that Noah and Moses did not exist; One has a right to hold that opinion.

But to make a claim such as the one in the original post, then misquote an article to make the point says a lot.

I am quick to accept conclusions, based on evidence, other than my own when presented well, but on the other hand quick to dismiss unfounded claims or claims made based on misquoted information.

Since I never quoted the article, it is impossible for me to misquote it. Why do you tell lies?

[rumplesnitz]

Hi Michael.  Welcome!

Despite your disappointment in both BAR and this Forum, I know why you subscribe to both:

They're the best there is 

I will half way agree with you. I have been banned from better forums.   

And sadly BAR is the best that is available. I just wish Hershel was more concerned about scholarship than making a buck. 

He has to cater to multiple viewpoints and pretend there is a debate when none exists. His silly editorial this month on trying to claim some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth is an example.  A better piece would have said, Samson was a myth based on the solar god Shamash. It was placed in an historical background. Shamash which scholars contend was the origin of Samson was never even mentioned in the article. Hershel doesn't want to offend his god believers and hurt his subscriptions.

Well, if the part I've underlined, italicized, bolded, and colored in the quote above is what you were referring to Rick - Mike's got ya.  He didn't quote, he simply mis-characterized.

But I got here 'en medias res', so I may be way off...

[Admin1]

Since I never quoted the article, it is impossible for me to misquote it. Why do you tell lies?

I stand corrected.  You did not "quote" the article. 

But you DID claim that it said something that it did NOT say.

[Michael]

Since I never quoted the article, it is impossible for me to misquote it. Why do you tell lies?

I stand corrected.  You did not "quote" the article. 

But you DID claim that it said something that it did NOT say.

In your opinion....

[Admin1]

No opinion is necessary to see that you did not at all describe what was said in the article.

I quoted the article for all to see. 

[Admin1]

As soon as the article comes available online, I'll post it in it's entirety so that members can make their own judgment instead of taking my or your word on what it says.

[Michael]

No opinion is necessary to see that you did not at all describe what was said in the article.

I quoted the article for all to see. 

It was not my intent to describe everything in the article. Why would I do that when one can read it? It was simply a waste of ink pandering to the religious right.

[Admin1]

I did not at all chastise or otherwise speak negatively that you did not describe everything in the article.

I will make my point one more time only.  I'm sorry to all if I am not being clear enough.

My objection is your summary comment that Shanks was claiming "some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth".

That comment is very misleading.  Shanks did not at all claim "some sort of historical context behind the Samson [story]".

Shanks did not present one iota of "historical context" related to Samson himself.

If you continue to insist that he did, then cite something from the article that backs it up.

Alternatively, if you would like to re-word that phrase, that would be acceptable.

Bottom line: There is some good historical/archaeological info in that article, but none if it was about the man (or the myth) Samson.

[Michael]

I did not at all chastise or otherwise speak negatively that you did not describe everything in the article.

I will make my point one more time only.  I'm sorry to all if I am not being clear enough.

My objection is your summary comment that Shanks was claiming "some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth".

That comment is very misleading.  Shanks did not at all claim "some sort of historical context behind the Samson [story]".

Shanks did not present one iota of "historical context" related to Samson himself.

If you continue to insist that he did, then cite something from the article that backs it up.

Alternatively, if you would like to re-word that phrase, that would be acceptable.

Bottom line: There is some good historical/archaeological info in that article, but none if it was about the man (or the myth) Samson.

"some historical context" is not the same as the story being completely historical.

[Admin1]

Who said anything about completely historical???

[Michael]

Shanks attempts to provide a historical background to the text. It is obvious he does that starting with the third to the last paragraph on page 6 and throughout all of page 84.

That is all that I am saying in that reagrd and nothing more.

He then speaks out of both sides of his mouth attempting to satisfy scholars who know the story is false and "people of faith" who believe the story is true. Why does he pander to "people of faith?" Why shouldn't Shanks simply take  the scholarly high road approach and leave it at that? I would have more respect for Shanks if he stopped trying to appeal to the non-scholarly people of faith as opposed to the scholarly.