Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
You have not demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the historical underpinnnings of the Old and New Testaments, facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic. You have not demonstrated the inner workings of the Documentary Hypothesis, a knowledge of archaeology, a thorough understanding of Greek philosophy and the outgrowths through the Catholic Church, a working knowledge of the textual criticism, William James, Gadamer, linguistic analysis, professional historian standards, or anything to indicate you are necessarily classically trained in empiricism.
I don't qualify under all those requirement, though I'm trying. Unless you can do that, it is a misrepresentation that you are devoted to logic and order. Your study is as haphazard as the next person, not a logical and thorough canvassing of the field. So spare us with your logical declarations. Other than reciting the rote words of disaffection, demonstrate your eruditiion in academic fields that matter.
|
Spare me the I'm smarter than you are so shut up routine. I try to read books written by scholars with sound reputations (Quinn and Compton for starters). I take their arguments at face value, I read the footnotes and consider the sources. I also read commentary by people who make well reasoned arguments (Bob McCue for one though I know you think he is a hack Archaea) It was the facts and reason that led me away even though the authors (Quinn and Compton) came to different conclusions than I did. If you can recommend a pro mormon read on these subjects that does not put in the "however, if you really want to know the truth get down on your knees" disclaimer I would be happy to read it.
I have never offered my opinions as a great learned scholar, only as my opinions. I am not swayed by feelings just facts and I let the chips fall where they may.