- Aug 13, 2016
- 2,921
- 1,244
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
How we understand and rad 3500-year old texts from dead cultures in dead languages.
I am starting a new series on logical extension fallacies specifically (A.K.A. Straw men).
The focus will change from thread to thread but since this fallacy of extending or reducing a concept to the rediculous and then ridiculing it as rediculous is often overlooked by theists, my hope, and it may be somewhat idealistic, is that I will poison the wells to such poor arguments from atheists, and help theist avoid the same error when engaging evidence for atheism.
Since both Jewish and Christian theistic arguments often present evidence from the Old and New testaments, it seems we should understand the proper way of getting at ancient texts 3500+ years old in some cases.
There are a variety of ways to understand exegetical methods. This information avoids the minority unscholarly approaches (e.g. "well what dat sentens done mean to me's is") in favor of actually doing a small amount of work to figure out what the original audience would have understood.
Laughable are the claims by atheists of, "I know the scriptures better than most Christians."
These claims are incredibly ignorant but why should they know something they aren't actually interested in knowing? More surprising is the Christians who claim allegiance to Christ but are equally ignorant and unwilling to invest the effort to know.
Enough of my appeals to ridicule. Let the games begin:
If you are too lazy too watch the video I am not likely to reply to your red herring.
Please no fake erudite comments about not needing to know languages or context because we have an interpretation in English. Some of us out here actually went to college and can see through the fakery at a 1000 yards.
I am starting a new series on logical extension fallacies specifically (A.K.A. Straw men).
The focus will change from thread to thread but since this fallacy of extending or reducing a concept to the rediculous and then ridiculing it as rediculous is often overlooked by theists, my hope, and it may be somewhat idealistic, is that I will poison the wells to such poor arguments from atheists, and help theist avoid the same error when engaging evidence for atheism.
Since both Jewish and Christian theistic arguments often present evidence from the Old and New testaments, it seems we should understand the proper way of getting at ancient texts 3500+ years old in some cases.
There are a variety of ways to understand exegetical methods. This information avoids the minority unscholarly approaches (e.g. "well what dat sentens done mean to me's is") in favor of actually doing a small amount of work to figure out what the original audience would have understood.
Laughable are the claims by atheists of, "I know the scriptures better than most Christians."
These claims are incredibly ignorant but why should they know something they aren't actually interested in knowing? More surprising is the Christians who claim allegiance to Christ but are equally ignorant and unwilling to invest the effort to know.
Enough of my appeals to ridicule. Let the games begin:
If you are too lazy too watch the video I am not likely to reply to your red herring.
Please no fake erudite comments about not needing to know languages or context because we have an interpretation in English. Some of us out here actually went to college and can see through the fakery at a 1000 yards.
Last edited:
