Friday, February 11, 2011

Ed's Backwards Again

Edski “I’m Talking and I Can’t Shut Up” Babinski left another one of those “advertise a link” comments that had nothing to do with the post he commented on, and it makes for a good Forge posting to deflate him with (for only the 576,876th time in the last 10 years). Mainly because it shows how, as usual, Edski's got the cart before the horse, and his head inserted where the horse doesn't shine.

I'm sure you'll have a few too, before your debate with Carrier, "a few" buckets of KFC.

When the Skeppies start making cracks about my weight (which they haven’t heard is no longer even an issue), you can tell they have sound arguments to offer. But for the record – no, Edski. I hate fast food, especially KFC, and fried food is especially on my list of dislikes. I cannot eat more than one piece of fried chicken before I get tired of it. But this, note, comes from a guy whose own scholarship is the equivalent of deep fried Twinkies.

By the way, another preterist got enlightened, at least partially so. Read about it here:

This is the link Edski wanted to advertise, and we won’t give him the satisfaction. But basically, the author was somehow persuaded by Thom Stark’s treatment of N. T. Wright that Wright’s preterist views were not perfect. Only one problem with that: Wright is not and never has been a preterist. He denies the label. As “Jaltus” of TheologyWeb, himself a Biblical scholar, said in November 2003:

I hate to tell you, all you preterists, but N.T. Wright is not of your ilk.

He specifically mentioned at the ETS conference in Atlanta that he thought preterists were severly and "seriously mistaken" and that their views were "obviously wrong" about the Lord returning in 70 AD. He did say that 70 AD was a vindication of Jesus' words in Luke and Mark, but that Matthew was split into both eschatological and 70 AD predictions.

So the blog author’s riff that Wright’s teachings “are basically preteristic” demonstrates a serious ignorance. Yes, he has some aspects that preterists find useful. But Stark’s chapter on this (which, by the way, is monumentally pathetic in itself) found my response one in which I spent little time defending Wright from Stark (akin to defending Godzilla from an ant, as it were) and more time explaining why Stark’s critique didn’t affect preterism. But I spent little time doing either, since most of what Stark offered, even against Wright, had little effect on my views anyway.

Edski then says he is waiting for me to change my mind on preterism, since I also did on “a hell of torture, and even on the efficacy of citing OT verses as NT proof texts. “ Well, Edski, sorry to break your wind-up toy, but it ain’t happenin’. All three of those views are solidly rooted in the data – the anthropology, the literature, all of it – and the only way it will change is if all of history is revealed as a hoax. Which will happen about the same time you get a brain.

Edski closes with this tried refrain, the one he only uses when he hasn’t got any better ideas:

And please tell us all what books and tracts you read prior to converting to Christianity. We'd all love to know what an "intellectual" choice you made way back then.

Sure, you would, Edski – because you sure can’t argue against the intellectual stances I hold now, can you?

4 comments:

  1. If all it took for you to convert was a few tracts, and threats of hell, then say so.

    Forgive me for allowing you the last word in our past communications, I thought that was your occupation, aside from the time you spend lauding yourself and awarding yourself trophies based on your unshakable faith that you have "won" every debate or carried every point of discussion.

    All I see in your writing and style of discourse is the same knuckle-headed opinions, beliefs and fears of an early teen, "rationalized" to such an extent as an adult you don't even know where the open ended questions truly begin and your rationalizations and theological imagination ends.

    At least N.T. Wright admitted, ever so briefly, admitted he had undergone a "crisis" during his advanced studies of the Bible, and his definition of inspiration is looser than yours.

    The world is filled with arguments against your biblical nonsense from your belief in the near inerrancy of the Bible (the "honor-shame" theologians whom you cite don't think their sociological theories support the Bible's near inerrancy as you seem to imagine they do) -- to your "default" position of young-earth creationism -- to your Preteristic blindness concerning the rise of apocalyptic (apocalyptic is a new bolder expectation in lieu of the Jews remaining a conquered people by Greeks and Romans for so long, and not just recycled OT prophecies as Preterists argue). To your rejection of the majority view concerning Markan Priority (oh what Mark left out of his Gospel when he copied from Matthew and Luke's, what an amazing deleter that Mark was). To your defense of the minority view that Daniel was not inter-testamental, but a book hidden by God to be revealed later (like the book of Enoch I supposed). Not to mention your taking little notice concerning apocalyptic writings of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or the fact that the scrolls include never before seen psalms and books based on Deuteronomy that their interpreted in ways differing from later Judaisms. There was no Jewish canon set in stone apparently, not even in Jesus' day. Even NT authors cited passages and ideas from inter-testamental works, and Gospel writers cited variant translations from the Greek OT that are not even considered the major variant passages today (hoping to prove something by them). And much more. The scholarly world is not your world, you live in the apologetic world, a world containing far more answers than questions. And if you can't prove to the scholarly world, or even to fellow Christians with differing interpretations, that your sectarian views are the only ones people should be "certain" about, then you just draw more bunnies with wider opened mouths screaming at people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ed “I’m Talking and I Can’t Shut up” Dumbinski:
    “If all it took for you to convert was a few tracts, and threats of hell, then say so.“

    It didn’t. Next stupid assumption?

    “Forgive me for allowing you the last word in our past communications..."

    That’s all right. We all understand that your self-esteem is badly damaged by encounters with superior intellects that make your crayon-pushing scholarship looks like something out of a cartoon.

    “All I see in your writing and style of discourse is the same knuckle-headed opinions...”

    Yes, we know: All you can see is that, because if you didn’t convince yourself that that was the case, you’d start whaling like an infant.
    As usual, Edski, you’re long on wind and short in substance. I know what “open ended questions” are and I know that con artists like you use that as an excuse to avoid a conclusion you can’t refute otherwise. I know that twits like you label things “rationalizations” and “imagination” because actual argument fails you, and your best friend is a Dymo tape machine.

    “At least N.T. Wright admitted...”

    Isn’t that special. Maybe Tom just isn’t an INTJ. An INTJ doesn’t have “crises” about such things because we don’t invest emotionally in anything – get it?

    “The world is filled with arguments against your biblical nonsense...”

    And for it, too. But you’re too dumb to answer either side.

    “the 'honor-shame' theologians whom you cite don't think their sociological theories support the Bible's near inerrancy as you seem to imagine they do”

    Never said they did, moron. What I do say is that SOME of their insights provide answers for SOME of the alleged difficulties. As usual, you’re still thinking like a fundy for whom the options are either “all” or “nothing”. Meanwhile, I grew up past that kind of thinking at age 3.

    “(apocalyptic is a new bolder expectation in lieu of the Jews remaining a conquered people by Greeks and Romans for so long, and not just recycled OT prophecies as Preterists argue”

    That’s not what preterists argue, Edski. Please get educated for once in your life. Please.

    “ To your rejection of the majority view concerning Markan Priority”

    Blah blah blah...you make this huge list, but not one frinkin’ argument comes from that cake hole of yours, does it? All you do is present inane summary statements without any backup; and it’s obvious why – because each time you DO go into more detail, you end up on the business end of my buzzsaw.


    Example of your incompetence:

    “Even NT authors cited passages and ideas from inter-testamental works, and Gospel writers cited variant translations from the Greek OT that are not even considered the major variant passages today (hoping to prove something by them). “

    Um, Edski? I know this. And take account of it in some articles. And it isn’t a problem for me. Again, clue in: I grew up. You didn’t. You’re the one who hasn’t any idea what the “scholarly world” is all about, because YOU live in a babyish world of amateur Skeptical apologetics tainted by your prior fundamentalism.

    Isn’t it about time you got a real life? And does Furman know you typed all this crap during working hours?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh please tell me this guy doesn't live near me in the upstate?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you mean upstate SC, yes. He's in Greenville somewhere. I expect that's why the place gets fumigated for stupid so often.

    ReplyDelete