failure to support...

[archaeologist]

one's position and arguments. 

it is really tiring to continue to read posts which fail to provide even a minute reference link or source to back up one's position.  i remember that rick placed on theis board that the focus of this board was to be more of a scholarly bent and not like other boards.

the continual failure to provide credible sources to back oneself up makes this website like jesusneverexisted or infidels.org where any wing-nut can post a opinion which is far fromt he truth and poorly researched or understood.

to deny something then when called upon to show proof, the answer 'my common sense...' is not credible nor is it proof that your position is correct.  allit is is a retreat into a state of denial and your own personal belief which has no basis other than the fact you do not want to accept the Biblical account of events.

time to start backing up your words with credible scholars, links, sources and so on.

[Admin1]

Indeed "Scholarly" is the vision... but unfortunately that means different things to different people.

Sadly, some scholars themselves do what you complain of - and what I agree you have a right to complain of: Make statements and state facts without saying how they arrived at them.

One example that I've run across lately (not here, but in books by "scholars") relates to the dating of the original NT works.

One says "scholars agree" that it's from 100-120.  Another says "scholars agree" that it's from 70-90.  What is a layman to believe without the inclusion of which scholars believe that it's dated in that range?

In my humble opinion, the "bottom line" for this forum should be:

Say what you want, but do so without disparaging a) other members or b) those who disagree.  This is a "scholarly" way of presenting something.

With this in mind, readers of posts on this forum should be aware that what's posted here is like information in any other area of study:  Just because someone says it's so does not mean it's so.

On the brighter side, I do have confidence that most readers do know this...and do know that those members whose intentions are good and sincere - and whose posts are recognized as relevant and worthy of discussion - are appreciated... and that those who become known to post bizzare and unusual opinions and positions without substantiation are recognized as ... well ... whatever one chooses to call it in his own mind

[archaeologist]

i am going to disagree with you here as it is important to produce credible links and sources to simply avoid a he said/she said scenario where every person just posts an opinion which is not based on fact  nor the truth.

anybody can say 'i don't beleive you'  but that just stops or hinders proper discussion.  there has to be reasons why someone will dismiss another person's argument and position and those reasons aid discussion.

also how can we correct anyone if they are found in error and are using wing-nut websites as their foundation?
\
it is also an insult to brianroy who seems to take great care in crafting his responses if people can come in and just say 'that's wrong' and not back up their point.

soon people like him will get tired of doing great work and leave while this place disintergrates into an 'is too'  /'is not'  dialogue and nothing is achieved or learned.

i have certainly cut down my participation here because i view many of the responses as discussion enders and a waste of time since nothing credible is being put forth.

[Admin1]

We are very limited as to what we can "require" in postings.  It would be unrealistic to try to moderate posts and remove ones that do not include references/backup/support.

Even if we did, then we'd be moderating the quality of the references...

We're open for ideas, though

Are there scholarly forums that you know of that we could take a look at to get some ideas?

[notalent]

We are very limited as to what we can "require" in postings.  It would be unrealistic to try to moderate posts and remove ones that do not include references/backup/support.

Even if we did, then we'd be moderating the quality of the references...

We're open for ideas, though

Are there scholarly forums that you know of that we could take a look at to get some ideas?

Perhaps the only way to keep a forum "scholarly" is to heavily moderate it.  Before any post makes it to the forum page for others to read, it must pass muster with the moderator, such that nothing ever gets posted unless it meets the requirements of professional, "credentialed" discourse (whether the writer is credentialed or not).  One example of this seemingly tight control is the New Chronology news group at
NewChronology : David Rohl

The quality of posts is very high.  Very few posts from non-credentialed researchers ever get posted, though a few do make it if they are intelligent, pertinent and respectful.  You never see much in the way of rants or blind assertion.  You NEVER see condescending posts or squabbling.

That kind of control at BAS forum might mean that most of the now-extant posts would never see the light of day.  But it might also allow more credentialed contributors to eventually feel comfortable using it as a place to share information and engage laymen than they would in the current atmosphere.

[Admin1]

Thanks for that link notalent.  Will check it out

[notalent]

Thanks for that link notalent.  Will check it out

Of course, there's nothing necessarily wrong with the current "level" of our forum.  It just depends on what the aspirations were of its creators.

[Admin1]

The goal is to offer a public forum where a variety of issues may be discussed or asked about.

Currently the only thing prohibited is disparaging comments, name-calling, etc.

I love to quote Chesterton regarding that (in my signature)

Disparaging comments and name-calling is the easiest way to turn a good discussion, debate or argument into a quarrel.

Quarrels are not welcome here

[RamboPreacher]

The goal is to offer a public forum where a variety of issues may be discussed or asked about.

Currently the only thing prohibited is disparaging comments, name-calling, etc.

I love to quote Chesterton regarding that (in my signature)

Disparaging comments and name-calling is the easiest way to turn a good discussion, debate or argument into a quarrel.

Quarrels are not welcome here

In my opinion though, and on a public forum - a quarrel = an argument = a debate; and those do not equate a discussion.

I think there can be some middle ground for moderation in these things.  as  an example, When someone makes a statement of fact and they are asked to back it up, they should.  if not, they get reported, and then the mod can step in.

I agree with thte "scholars agree" issue you mentioned.  but then the next question I might ask would be - what scholars - please provide this list or documentation of these scholars agreeing.  asking for citations, bibliographic information, evidences and proof shouldn't have to be half of a given thread. (raises hand- guilty) - but when the posters refuse, I can't tell if they just don't get it, or if they are being abstinent, so I give the benefit of the doubt and try to rephrase my request.

So, how can I continue in that thread of discussion, after that?  it is extremely difficult, as there is not agreement of base assumptions and understandings.  even if folks disagree, they can agree to disagre and continue a discussion.  but if one party refuses, and assumes that they are the only one correct and all else fails or is incorrect, there is no common (or uncommon) ground for discussion.

[archaeologist]

before i finish reading all the posts here i will direct this one to rick's comment about moderating content.

i am not asking the moderators to delete posts because they do not have credible links that would be too much work on them and unrealistic.  i am asking that posters start backing up their positions with credible sources .  they need to do their own work not the moderators or the other people in the discussions.

nor am i asking moderators to check the references again that isn't their job.  the individual poster should be doing that and providing others in the discussion the source material or state it is original thought.

just to come inhere and say --i deny the exodus-- is not having a discussion but making a closed statement which stops said discussion.   that defeats the purpose.  at least if we have sources and references we have something to look at  analyze digest and think about before making another comment.

now i know it is impossible to do this every time i don't even do it all the time but it would be nice to have something other than 'i disagree' then silence.

[falasha]

Since my time devoted to this activity is minimal, I use it by reading other people's posts. Sometimes I can't resist commenting but know I must keep my involvement minimal. But I think it's rude to not comment when someone has gone to all the trouble of posting a heartfelt argument. So we just see short postings differently; I think they are polite and you think they are not to the calibre they should be. The benefits of forums such as these is that scholars living in ivory towers can mix with common folk. Sometimes that is the catalyst for insights into understanding. The preceeding is my opinion only and therefore does not require cited evidence.

Also, there was a post on the evolution of the christology of Jesus in Gospels compared to Pauls letters. Does anyone know which thread this post was on?

[turanclancath]

  As an European I think I will never understand Americans and  the American  way of thinking.

I always learned at School  America was the land of  Liberty ( see your Statue ) Freedom in Religion Speech and Thought.
The land of hospitality eating apple pys on Sundays etc etc

And that censorship and guided things were contrarary and revulsing  to it;  belonging to nasty other cultural systems.

So I dont understand this all  about moderation censor ship;  and   ordering that people should     get away from a topic  proof it ,ore postings are deleted .

as you observed I really feel scared to participate in discussions because of these things  .

So perhaps we have a complete  wrong image of America in Europe?
Or are we too tolerant in Europe?

turanclancath:)

[archaeologist]

freedom of speech does not mean you get to say whatever you want without backing it up.  if you don't back it up it is just gossip or hearsay and means very little.

you seem to do quite well with putting links and sources in your posts so i do not think why you would be afraid to do so.

also there is no censorship going on just an attempt to make the forum enjoyable for all.  there has to be rules and moderastors or there would be just anarchy and nothing of value.

the asking for sources is for discussion purposes and is not meant to deprive people of their right to their opinion it is just to help discussion and see where the ideas come from.

[turanclancath]

Thanks Archaeologist. Feel good again .
Great relief for me so I go on posting  with great joy and interest.

turanclancath:)

[Elijah]

well then i ask, did Darwin upon his own personal fabricated concept that monkeys evolved from dogs who evolved from fish who evolved from plankton..... did he keep his mouth shut on his theory of supposed NATURAL evidence until he could find schools and books and previous scholars who have already contemplated such as evidence. Did he ever quote Jacob who from 1781-1761 BC tested out aquired characteristics by thinking he gets spotted sheep when the sheep see spots while eating.
So if we quote Josephus, then that assures us nothing Josephus wrote, nothing at all not one word not one paragraph was his own fabircated opinion?  I think not. The majority of our historrians wrote as they saw things, not as they knew to be fact. Quoting a quote on a quote, doesnt make it fact.
     The Japanese Era of 660 BC.... who tells us it is so. Does only one man, or because it is fact we have hundreds of men who cannot take personal fame for knowing it. So then when the implication arises that Egyptian Alexandrian LXX Genesis is based on Ramses Papyrus Canon where their new altered Genesis says The Flood is 3090 BC, the same as Egypt's rise from the flood... sure it can be questioned. But its alot less reading to say Egypt miscalculated the Flood as 3090 BC. THis goes too then for the fact that the Flood stated by Jospehus to be 3060 BC must in fact be what remains of Japanese calculation of 2400 years to 660 BC. Common knowledge in hundreds of sources place th epoch of China as a flood in 2953 BC and the calendar as 2637 BC and then an Era 2400 years later in 237 BC. Is it coincidence that China uses 2400 from calendar to Era, yet then not see the 2400 from 3060 BC to 660 BC as Japanese !!!!
Simply put, as a BIBLE FORUM i take the stand that is known for Moses to have, where upon though he was a prince of Pharaoh himself, it meant nothing for scholar priests to shove him aside saying what the heck do you know Moses. The days of Moses are not without ancient cuneiform texts that go quoting other texts, but when did anyone become ruler to say all texts must quote other texts. Genesis had its sources, but i dont feel the need to dig up the sources that Moses took them from. To me it seems very apparent that he knew that Abram was born when Terah was 130, but he also knew others were saying at 70, so he left it alone, and just said hey, his father was 205 when he was 75. Or would you say he left his 145-year old father alone in the city of Haran for 60 years (until 205) while he wandered Canaan and Egypt. People need to place themselves in those times. Then they wont imagine flying saucers coming down to help them build those pyramids.

Many want quotes, because they are expressing their atitude of saying
I dont want to know anything you say, I want to hear it from someone else. So tell me who you get this from, so I can say it is not what that writer meant. BUT I AM NOT HERE TO BE SOMEONE ELSE BEFORE ME. Maybe you are, or you feel you expand your greatness if you quote the men you think are great. Hey, Isaac Azimov is dead. Leave him rest.
Signed,
The chronologer