outhouse wrote:neilgodfrey wrote:
Try to understand. Try to think a moment before typing a response
.
That's what Im going to say to you. Stop and think before you quote mine Young out of context.
Um, I did not quote Young at all. I clearly said it was my own addition to what Young said.
outhouse wrote:
Lets look at the context of his work.
This article examines how Evangelical Christian inerrantist scholars theorize their bibli-cal scholarship and its relation to the broader academy, highlighting (1) their self-repre-sentation as true academics, and (2) the ways they modulate historical methods to prefer interpretive options that keep the Bible inerrant.
Very good. And I explained exactly the two types of inerrantist scholars he describes. You're getting there. Keep going.
outhouse wrote:You quote mined Hanges then quote mined Young to make a hybrid point neither really makes.
I was making a combined point, yes. But if you can show from Hanges and Young that I have distorted anything at all that they ever said or meant then you can find me guilty of "quote-mining". I quoted Hanges enough to show you that there is nothing misrepresented -- nor did I misrepresent anything by Young. Quote-mining is a term that means selectively quoting out of context in a way that misrepresents the quoted author.
Um, actually I cited the source I copied and pasted Hanges' words from so you could have referred to that instead of some other piece of writing of his where he spoke about something else.
Just as you were coming along with Young you go and trip over Hanges. Never mind. Get up. Try again.
outhouse wrote:
That is, Paul’s gospel is the result of an individual experience or derived from individual qualities. Moreover, for many of these scholars, this moment of revelation/insight is associated with Paul’s famous “Damascus Road” experience
He is not without fault either, this really is an idiots opinion here. I don't know a single credible scholar that claims this or gives any credibility to the Damascus mythology.
Oh my god. This has nothing whatever to do with the passages I quoted from Hanges' book or the point he was making in those.
But as for you jumping in to call Hanges an idiot, if you actually read Hanges with any minimal comprehension -- both in the article you quote and in the book from which I quoted -- you would see that Hanges DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A HISTORICAL DAMASCUS ROAD incident at all. He even says the whole story is a myth and he cites the sources for the myth.
The "individual experience" Hanges is referring to is NOT any literal Damascus Road event.
outhouse wrote:
Paul’s “law-free,” faith-based gospel to the non-Jews has been traditionally assumed by the Church, and with most scholars associated with the Church, to be the product of specific revelation
This is his "apologist" context, and this is an example of his misuse of apologist and scholars .
You have no idea what Hanges is talking about.
outhouse wrote:Here, he is claiming typical apologist view of Paul's revelation. And claiming most scholars associated with the Church, simply is not true.
Sorry, Hanges actually REJECTS the "typical apologist view of Paul's revelation". He rejects it. He says it never happened. Damascus road story is a myth.
Stop being an idiot.