who wrote the Desire of Ages-

Byfaithalone1 · Jan 16, 2009

Point 1. I am a "he," not a "she." You might get to know the person with whom you are dialoguing. There are many relevant things about him that you are missing.

Point 2. You hold yourself up as an expert without providing any basis for your claim. In contrast, I confirm that I am not an expert and that there is no need for me to provide my credentials . Even so, I still provided my credentials when you asked for them.

Point 3. In response to your requests for evidence, I provide specific references. To this, you offer only ad hominem replies (consider your reply to the references to Mrs. White's writings which you requested and which I supplied).

Point 4. I provided a list of things I once believed as examples of errors that I previously held that I no longer hold. Rather than taking these statements at face value, you ask for evidence that I actually believed the things I once believed (and you seem to be concluding erroneously that I assume that all SDAs believe as I once did).

Point 5. You declare many things to be irrelevant that are actually relevant. For example, if I indicated that I no longer believe that the church should be the conscience of its members on matters not directly set out in Scripture, then it is relevant for me to cite examples that illustrate what I mean.

Point 6. I have asked you to be responsive, and you have not been. For example, you did not respond substantively to the following:

Your question seems to confirm that you believe that man must be perfect prior to Christ's second coming. Please confirm in concrete terms whether you or not you believe this to be true.
Is God the only authoritative source of truth?

Point 7. I provided a substantive answer (often including Scripture) to each of your questions. When I provided the results of my study regarding Matthew 5 (which began long before our dialogue), you merely passed my comments off as "cut and paste" without responding to them substantively. In fact, my comments were not cut and paste. Further, when I provided additional context, you seem to indicate that Chapter 7 could not possibly considered part of the context of Chapter 5 (without really explaining why two passages written by the same author to the same audience regarding the same sermon should not be considered part of the same context).

Point 8. I am looking for a 2-way, substantive dialogue. It appears that I need to keep looking.

BFA

djconklin · Jan 20, 2009

So many questions, so few answers.

Byfaithalone1 · Jan 20, 2009

djconklin said:
So many questions, so few answers.

Indeed.

BFA

djconklin · Jan 20, 2009

So many questions, so few answers.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Mea culpa! I failed to see that you were on another page.

Point 1. I am a "he," not a "she." You might get to know the person with whom you are dialoguing. There are many relevant things about him that you are missing.

Who is the him that you are talking about? And would please stop this annoying habit of clipping things? Here you are supposedly responding to something I said, but we cannot see what it is that I supposedly said.

Point 2. You hold yourself up as an expert without providing any basis for your claim. In contrast, I confirm that I am not an expert and that there is no need for me to provide my credentials . Even so, I still provided my credentials when you asked for them.

I have never held myself up as an expert. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed you towards those who are experts. Secondly, without some sort of evidence as to what credentials are necessary it is quite foolish to even talk about them. Third, we have no evidence about your credentials. All we have so far is a claim that you have an English degree (without any evidence that such is necessary).

Point 3. In response to your requests for evidence, I provide specific references. To this, you offer only ad hominem replies (consider your reply to the references to Mrs. White's writings which you requested and which I supplied).

There you go with the clipping again.

Point 4. I provided a list of things I once believed as examples of errors that I previously held that I no longer hold. Rather than taking these statements at face value, you ask for evidence that I actually believed the things I once believed (and you seem to be concluding erroneously that I assume that all SDAs believe as I once did).

I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever asking you for proof that you actually believed those things. Thank you for the concession that all SDA's did not believe as you once did.

Point 5. You declare many things to be irrelevant that are actually relevant. For example, if I indicated that I no longer believe that the church should be the conscience of its members on matters not directly set out in Scripture, then it is relevant for me to cite examples that illustrate what I mean.

It was good that you at least attempted to provide an example. Unfortunately, your example fell to the ground because the church doesn't act as a conscience for its believers.

Point 6. I have asked you to be responsive, and you have not been. For example, you did not respond substantively to the following:

Your question seems to confirm that you believe that man must be perfect prior to Christ's second coming. Please confirm in concrete terms whether you or not you believe this to be true.

Is God the only authoritative source of truth?

I have already answered the question; you din't like the answer. That is not my problem.

When I provided the results of my study regarding Matthew 5 (which began long before our dialogue), you merely passed my comments off as "cut and paste" without responding to them substantively. In fact, my comments were not cut and paste.

What I noted as "cut and paste" was the analysis of the Greek. I did respond substantively to yourt remarks--that's the second time you have misrepresented what I said.

you seem to indicate that Chapter 7 could not possibly considered part of the context of Chapter 5 (without really explaining why two passages written by the same author to the same audience regarding the same sermon should not be considered part of the same context).

I told you that one too; that makes three.

Point 8. I am looking for a 2-way, substantive dialogue. It appears that I need to keep looking.

To use an analogy: it has been noted that many Sabbath School classes are an exercise in the pooling of ignorance because too many members didn't actually study the lesson. I have present at least a score of sources by experts in the field and none of them have been interacted with.

djconklin · Jan 20, 2009

Some unaswered questions:

1) I asked: did Canright {have an English degree}?
2) How about Rea?
3) How about Peterson (who agrees that EGW was not a plagiarist)?
4) Now Mazzeo and Macfarlane do have English degrees, majoring in literature--and by their studies one can see that EGW was no plagiarist. And yet you quibbled over Mazzeo's findings--so which is it?
5) Do we listen to the experts in the field, or do we not?
6) How about Dr. Specht and Cottrell when their work on DA agrees with mine--were they English majors?

What credentials are necessary to do this kind of study?

Byfaithalone1 · Jan 20, 2009

From DJConklin: Who is the him that you are talking about?

I am "the him" that I am talking about. You referred to me as a "she."

Here you are supposedly responding to something I said, but we cannot see what it is that I supposedly said.

Look back through the thread. You'll find it.

I have never held myself up as an expert.

Then why should we worry about what you've read and what think you've found? Why is it even relevant?

Secondly, without some sort of evidence as to what credentials are necessary it is quite foolish to even talk about them.

Let's see how your credentials stack up against Veltman's. We need more information from you in order to do that.

Third, we have no evidence about your credentials.

What can I provide that would satisfy your curiosity? A scanned copy of my degree?

There you go with the clipping again.

Go back through this thread and you'll find what I mean. Don't ask for references to Mrs. White's writings if you are only going to offer ad hominem replies once I provide them.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever asking you for proof that you actually believed those things.

Indeed you did. Please go back through this thread and you'll see what I mean.

It was good that you at least attempted to provide an example. Unfortunately, your example fell to the ground because the church doesn't act as a conscience for its believers.

Indeed it does. And it does so on matters not expressly prohibited in Scirpture (such as dancing, contemporary music and caffeine consumption).

I have already answered the question; you din't like the answer.

I can find no answer to that question. Please point me in the right direction.

What I noted as "cut and paste" was the analysis of the Greek.

And the analysis was not "cut and paste."

1) I asked: did Canright {have an English degree}?

Don't know. Is there something specific about Canright's writings that you'd like to discuss?

2) How about Rea?

Don't know. Is there something specific about Rea's writings that you'd like to discuss?

3) How about Peterson (who agrees that EGW was not a plagiarist)?

Don't know. Is there something specific about Peterson's writings that you'd like to discuss?

4) Now Mazzeo and Macfarlane do have English degrees, majoring in literature--and by their studies one can see that EGW was no plagiarist.

Mazzeo and Macfarlane never studied Mrs. White's writings.

5) Do we listen to the experts in the field, or do we not?

I consider Veltman an expert from within Seventh-day Adventism. Do you? Perhaps one day there will be an independent expert who will pick up Veltman's research where he left off and will be able to conduct the research without any need to bolster one side or the other. Neither you nor I would qualify as unbiased.

6) How about Dr. Specht and Cottrell when their work on DA agrees with mine--were they English majors?

Is this really an unanswered question, or is this a new question that you're throwing in for good measure?

At what point will you answer the questions I posed to you that remain unanswered? Here they are again:

Your question seems to confirm that you believe that man must be perfect prior to Christ's second coming. Please confirm in concrete terms whether you or not you believe this to be true.
Is God the only authoritative source of truth?

BFA

djconklin · Jan 20, 2009

From DJConklin: Who is the him that you are talking about?

Click to expand...

I am "the him" that I am talking about. You referred to me as a "she."

Mea culpa, slipped an extra letter into a word.

I have never held myself up as an expert.

Click to expand...

Then why should we worry about what you've read and what think you've found? Why is it even relevant?

I agree with the experts. I show the actual evidence. You don't need to listen to me--look at the evidence.

Secondly, without some sort of evidence as to what credentials are necessary it is quite foolish to even talk about them.

Click to expand...

Let's see how your credentials stack up against Veltman's. We need more information from you in order to do that.

1) We have no evidence as to what credentials are necessary, or that any are necessary.
2) I've already noted that according to Dr. Specht what prepared him for this kind of study was his work on the Synioptic Problem--on which I had spent three years prior to this study.

There you go with the clipping again.

Click to expand...

Go back through this thread and you'll find what I mean. Don't ask for references to Mrs. White's writings if you are only going to offer ad hominem replies once I provide them.

A fact {clipping} is not an ad hominem attack.

I have already answered the question; you didn't like the answer.

Click to expand...

I can find no answer to that question. Please point me in the right direction.

When I ask you, you tell me to search through the thread. You can follow your own advice.

It was good that you at least attempted to provide an example. Unfortunately, your example fell to the ground because the church doesn't act as a conscience for its believers.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does. And it does so on matters not expressly prohibited in Scirpture (such as dancing, contemporary music and caffeine consumption).

No it does not.

1) I asked: did Canright {have an English degree}?

Click to expand...

Don't know. Is there something specific about Canright's writings that you'd like to discuss?

Please pay attention to the context; we are discussing if he had an English degree when he made his clainm of plagiarism, not his writings.

2) How about Rea?

Click to expand...

Don't know. Is there something specific about Rea's writings that you'd like to discuss?

Again, we are talking about if he had an English degree. Note the number "2' which obviously follows number '1'.

3) How about Peterson (who agrees that EGW was not a plagiarist)?

Click to expand...

Don't know. Is there something specific about Peterson's writings that you'd like to discuss?

See the response to numbers 1 and number 2 above.

4) Now Mazzeo and Macfarlane do have English degrees, majoring in literature--and by their studies one can see that EGW was no plagiarist.

Click to expand...

Mazzeo and Macfarlane never studied Mrs. White's writings.

1) And how do you know this? Where's the proof?

2) Not relevant in any case, because they have actually studied the literature of the era. You can then apply their findings to Ellen G. White.

5) Do we listen to the experts in the field, or do we not?

Click to expand...

I consider Veltman an expert from within Seventh-day Adventism. Do you? Perhaps one day there will be an independent expert who will pick up Veltman's research where he left off and will be able to conduct the research without any need to bolster one side or the other.

1) One what basis did you "consider" Dr. Veltman to be an "expert"?

2) Define "independent". Define "expert."

Neither you nor I would qualify as unbiased.

Define "unbiased." I didn't start the study with any bias one way or the other.

6) How about Dr. Specht and Cottrell when their work on DA agrees with mine--were they English majors?

Click to expand...

Is this really an unanswered question, or is this a new question that you're throwing in for good measure?

They were mentioned in passing before.

What credentials are necessary to do this kind of study?

Still unanswered. All the talk about "credentials" and being an "expert" is a smoke-screen.

Byfaithalone1 · Jan 20, 2009

djconklin said:
Mea culpa, slipped an extra letter into a word.

Telling.

I agree with the experts. I show the actual evidence. You don't need to listen to me--look at the evidence.

1) We have no evidence as to what credentials are necessary, or that any are necessary.
2) I've already noted that according to Dr. Specht what prepared him for this kind of study was his work on the Synioptic Problem--on which I had spent three years prior to this study.

A fact {clipping} is not an ad hominem attack.

When I ask you, you tell me to search through the thread. You can follow your own advice.

No it does not.

Please pay attention to the context; we are discussing if he had an English degree when he made his clainm of plagiarism, not his writings.

And I answered your question. I indicated that I did not know his credentials.

Again, we are talking about if he had an English degree. Note the number "2' which obviously follows number '1'.

And I answered your question. I indicated that I did not know his credentials.

See the response to numbers 1 and number 2 above.

And I answered your question. I indicated that I did not know his credentials.

1) And how do you know this? Where's the proof?

I have found no evidence that they studied Mrs. White's writings.

2) Not relevant in any case, because they have actually studied the literature of the era. You can then apply their findings to Ellen G. White.

1) One what basis did you "consider" Dr. Veltman to be an "expert"?

I have already set out his credentials in a previous post and I indicated that I viewed his credentials as being adequate. You refuse to provide your own credentials so we can compare them with Veltman's. That is becoming a noticable pattern (i.e. the lack of response).

2) Define "independent". Define "expert."

Define "unbiased." I didn't start the study with any bias one way or the other.

We'll let everyone who reads your posts decide whether this strikes them as an accurate statement.

They were mentioned in passing before.

Still unanswered. All the talk about "credentials" and being an "expert" is a smoke-screen.

I have answered your question. I provided Veltman's credentials and I've asked for you to provide your own credentials so we can compare and contrast. One might wonder what you have to hide. If you are conducting a study that you hope will be persuasive, then your background and experience are anything but a smokescreen; they are directly relevant.

We're not communicating. I have answered your questions. You've elected not to answer mine. Although this is your prerogative, it is also my prerogative to decide that this type of dialogue is a waste of my time. I'm done for now.

BFA

djconklin · Jan 21, 2009

I have found no evidence that they studied Mrs. White's writings.

And how did you find this?

1) One what basis did you "consider" Dr. Veltman to be an "expert"?

Click to expand...

I have already set out his credentials in a previous post and I indicated that I viewed his credentials as being adequate.

And that post would be?

BFA:That is becoming a noticable pattern (i.e. the lack of response).

Click to expand...

2) Define "independent". Define "expert."

We agree; it is quite telling.

Define "unbiased." I didn't start the study with any bias one way or the other.

Click to expand...

We'll let everyone who reads your posts decide whether this strikes them as an accurate statement.

The reviewers of my article noted its "high quality and cogent tone."

Still unanswered. All the talk about "credentials" and being an "expert" is a smoke-screen.

Click to expand...

I have answered your question. I provided Veltman's credentials

Not that I saw (I've checked pages 7-9 on this thread and it isn't there--where is it?). Nor have you ever said why his credentials were required. Nor have you said why his ceredentials were "superior" or better than those of Canright, Rea, Dr. Specht or Cottrel--what credentials did they have that qualified them to speak on this topic? Why am I being held to a higher, non-existent standard?

asked for you to provide your own credentials so we can compare and contrast. One might wonder what you have to hide

I have repeatedly stated that my experience in studying the Synoptic Problem was the same as Dr. Specht noted prepared him for his study of DA (see posts #80 and #87, for instance).

Although this is your prerogative, it is also my prerogative to decide that this type of dialogue is a waste of my time.

Same here; you just can't seem to answer the question: what "credentials" are necessary to study this topic? And why?

To repeat from post #84: I have present at least a score of sources by experts in the field and none of them have been interacted with.

Mazzeo, Tilar J. Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

THIS IS A MUST READ BOOK! The book "historicizes the discussion of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century plagiarism and demonstrates that it had little in common with our current understanding of the term" (jacket cover). The books seeks to "answer what turns out to be a deceptively simple question: What constituted plagiarism in Britain during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries?" (page ix). [The typical critic assumes that they meant the same thing as we mean today. See St. Onge's 2002 and web article.] Mazzeo writes of the early nineteenth century: "... writers who did not acknowledge their borrowings, even implicitly . . . were not considered plagiarists, no matter how extensive the correspondences, if they had improved upon their borrowed material" (page 2).

who wrote the Desire of Ages-

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

More options

djconklin

Moderate SDA

More options

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

More options

djconklin

Moderate SDA

More options

djconklin

Moderate SDA

More options

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

More options

djconklin

Moderate SDA

More options

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

More options

djconklin

Moderate SDA

More options

Similar threads

who wrote the Desire of Ages-

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Moderate SDA

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Moderate SDA

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Moderate SDA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency