Originally, I did not want to get down into the parsing game Mormons play. It represents an inability to engage in ideas that require more than one sentence to represent. That game is like arguing with a 4-year old and only results in the Mormon goal of obscuring the facts and the truth with a cloud of petty bickering. Its also just impractical due to the post-length restrictions. We ultimately end up in creating multi-part responses only to find ourselves trying to document our positions amidst single-sentence and sometimes single clause utterances that no one will read anyway ...because they are so arcane and petty and pointless.
But alas ...here I simply could not resist exposing Mak's lame rhetorical gamesmanship. I have elsewhere (in response to his response to my "Part 2" below) articulated the summary view of the major errors in Mak's claims. Here I would like to dissect some of the responses he has created by parsing out my words to his own rhetorical advantage as a means to exhibit the cheap manipulations to which Mormons are forced to resort in their effort to hide the otherwise blunt hollowness of their claims. If Mak and other Mormons were in any way confident of their own scholarship, such lame manipulations would be unnecessary. But alas ...the ubiquitous employment of these little parlor tricks seems to reveal a void of such confidence. In fact, Mak, you appear downright insecure in your childish lashing out at any who DARE to question your self-proclaimed authority.
(Go ahead and p**** up that paragraph and PROVE my point. I dare ya.)
For those who care to study the tricks, here are a few examples.
Note the condescension. Its SUPPOSED to make Mak look intelligent and superior. But ...had poor Mak been "paying attention" to his own post, he would have known for certain that he absolutely DID cite Semitic myths in his OP. Specifically he cited "cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period". The denial of this reference can only be a deliberate attempt at deception, the evidence of a clinical state of denial or just an AMAZINGLY stupid thing to say, given the textual FACTS so obvious in his own OP.1.) BH>>which drew down God's wrath and judgment upon the Israelites over and over again. Secondly, you have simply ***UMED that any Semitic myth is somehow a valid, authoritative, normative doctrine of Judaism.
2.)Wrong. I've ***umed nothing, and these conclusions are all drawn from the Bible, not from Semitic myths. Pay better attention.
See the game here. Mak fails to address let alone refute my point and then calls me a liar. The simple fact is, Mak ***erts that the Bible was written by "hundreds" (regardless of spelling) of people, when in fact the Bible names 40 people as its authors. But his quotations say NOTHING on the matter one way or the other. We are just supposed to think that anything Mak says is TRUE because he has placed a quote (regardless of its content) in support of his claim. See how the game is played?3.) You say that there is no consistent theology in the Bible (which, I remind you, is explicitly identified as the very "word of God" by YOUR OWN creed). That is your point is it not? But your citations say nothing to support your claims. You say that the Bible was written by "hundereds(sic) of people"
M>Quit lying, Brian. I didn't misspell that word, so don't pretend I did.
Note the evasion again. The fact is Maks citations in his OP simply say NOTHING about the date of authorship of biblical documents. Instead he tries to maneuver to the liberal dating of the OT docs - a mere THEORY that defies facts, and suddenly his argument ignores my point that his own citations do not support his claim, and becomes about what can be "comfortably" claimed. Then, as usual, in order to make his evasion look superior, he chides me for supposedly not being familiar with the liberal, secular, anti-supernaturalist ***umptions about when the OT was written.4.) BH>>Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say that the Bible was written "over the course of about a thousand years". The FACT is that Moses began the Bible in about 1400BC and John wrote the last book of the Bible in about 90 AD.
M>The earliest sections of the Bible can be comfortably dated to the ninth century BCE. Don't tell me you really don't know such basic information.
No ...its an observable FACT. Mak said that the Bible is "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". He then placed a few one-sentence quotes from some books that say nothing of the kind in a position of support to that ***ertion of the near-uselessness of the Bible (and his other ***ertions - none of which were supported by his one-sentence, uncited quotes either). Even the casual reader will note how Mak fails to offer a refutation, and simply pukes up his predictable opinion instead.5.) BH>>But your citations say nothing about the matter. Typical of a Mormon who denies the claim of their own creed in their rush to condemn the "word of God", you say that the Bible is nothing but " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". Your sources above say nothing of the kind.
M>Utterly meaningless posturing.
Once again we see the gammer at work. I DIRECTLY engaged his claim, and he just dismisses it by saying it addresses "nothing". Mak, YOU ABSOLUTELY DID appeal to the content of Ugaritic myth and attributed to it some authoritative representation of polytheism among the Israelites. But sadly for you, no one among the orthodox Israelites then or now recognizes these Semitic myths as authoritative in any way. Your mere denial of the FACTS so bluntly obvious in your own words in your own OP are cause for concern over your mental health.6.) BH>>At this point all we have is YOUR ***urance that this is the case and we have good reason to doubt YOU. You also appear to have made the mistake of ***uming that any and all Semitic myths or fairy tales are equal in authority to the revelation of God's word in the Hebrew scritprues. In fact, that error lies at the very heart of every error in this post.
M>Garbage. None of this actually engages anything. You're making sweeping generalizations that amount to, "This is all wrong."
Here is one of my favorites. Mormons will often attempt to make anyone who questions them the issue to be confronted. All I did was ask Mak to quote the text he cited. After all, we have no real ***urance that the text says what he attributes to it. And experience with Mormons and MAK IN PARTICULAR have shown that they (and especially HE) will cite books that he never even read. So what is his response to this very reasonable question? He tries to make ME the issue. I am told "Don't pretend you care what it says or that you'll honestly engage it when you have it". See how Mormons play this game? I simply and politely asked the great Maklellan to quote the text to which he was referring and suddenly I am the problem, MY honesty and interest are challenged. This is all supposed to distract you from noticing that the boy did not quote his own source to begin with and would generally indicate that he has little confidence that the text in question really will support the point to which he has ***igned it.7.) BH>>Please quote the text you have just cited.
M>Don't pretend you care what it says or that you'll honestly engage it when you have it, but I'll post it when I get home tonight.
Here is another favorite. Mak says: "In the biblical version of this pantheon El is the father God, and Asherah the mother." I point out the FACT that there is no "biblical version" of this claim, and suddenly he just ***erts that the Bible says "exactly what (he) explained" and then pretends that its in the Hebrew that he claims to be such an expert on. You will note that the one thing Mak will not and cannot ever do is actually produce any BIBLICAL support for his strange and even absurd ***ertion. But you are not supposed to notice that. You are supposed to be fooled by all the hand-waving and limply insinuated linguistic authority.8.) BH>>First of all, you are bluntly wrong. There is no "biblical version" of what you describe. The Bible says absolutely NOTHING like what you attribute to it.
M>Nope, it says exactly what I explained. If you don't know the Hebrew that's your problem, not mine.
Well thats about it for now, folks. Hopefully you will have seen for yourself how utterly transparent self-inflated Mormon "scholars" really are. Its all gamesmanship, parsing, deflection, evasion and other rhetorical parlor tricks with these guys.
Mak, you are as phony as a 9-dollar bill and YOU KNOW IT. So why would I believe you?
-BH
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by BrianH
