Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: From Fig to finding a Candy Man Message-ID: <1184@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 11:09:05 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1184 Posted: Wed Oct 8 11:09:05 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 19:52:39 EDT References: <6406@think.COM> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: na Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 51 In article <6406@think.COM> craig@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes: > Anyway, Biblical scholarship requires honest effort. Quite true. Scholarship of any sort generally requires effort. But... > Those who are merely looking for something to scoff at are not being honest. Some "scholarship" is quite deserved of scoffing. If it is based on bad assumptions, its results are worthless. GIGO. Your responses show exactly that kind of bad scholarship. > Much ado about a fig tree. If all you want is something to scoff at, go > ahead and scoff. I really don't care. Real scholars do pay attention to the claims of their opponents: otherwise they can't learn to rebut them. > In Jeremiah 8, there is the following (Jerusalem Bible)... Nevertheless, it > is sufficient to provide context for the next ocurrance of the fig tree... In > Luke 13 ... One of the unproven (and probably false in my opinion) assumptions implicit in the above statement is: disparate sections of the bible are related by solitary words like "fig tree". It's possible to construct interpretations that encompass both consistantly, but any claim that was the original intention is unfounded. > I tend to favor the story in Luke being accurate, with the version in > Mathew and Mark being a corrupted version. This happens to agree with my prejudice (since I don't believe in miracles), but what is your justification? (At least you're not a literalist! :-) > Also, I read the fig tree as > being broader than simply Israel, including all who would worship God. > But, as I have said, other interpretations are possible. So many other interpretations are possible that I don't see how you can do more than satisfy your own preconceived prejudices. That's not scholarship. -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh