To spell or not to spell

Every now and then we'll get some brainiac who wants to show his PHD skills by arguing against me in some fashion or another. None can be found more hilarious when its just plain obvious that they simply DON'T know what they're talking about. Such is the case for our case in study, Dr. Sellout, which we will call him for anonymity purposes. In a response to a review that he presented about Mr. Bart Ehrman, I simply had to put down Mr. Ehrman's response and show him the gullible claims that he was presuming were correct were simply not so. His response was QUITE radical I must say: "It's Erdman. "Bart D. Erdman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and chairman of the Department of Religious Studies," as he is identified. Clearly this is going nowhere. As for Lewis and McDowell, one argues from a phiklosophic point of view which cannot be substantiated by hard evidence, and the other relies on dubious references and second and third hand (not to mention suspect) sources. The problem is there is no hard evidence for Jesus' existence and much of the Bible has equally poor historical support. We are dealing with a matter of faith, as I'm fully aware, but most defenses of the Bible by believing scholars end up relying on the Bible itself as "evidence" and that's a tautology, which is a poor source for argument. It's best to go outside the text and see what the evidence is. The real problem is to assume that the Bible is literally true and not to see it as allegory and parable. "

Now, I don't know how his logic would work if we applied this to the Darwin book, "Origin of Species"...haha, actually I do, refer to "The Darwin Code" for more information, but I doubt this gentleman has acquired the reality gene of the nation. As far as the Bible being assumed, uhhh, no. When we take a close look at the Bible and see how the text measures up to outside evidence, it becomes linear reasoning. F in logic there. Well, I certainly can't match up to this gentleman's expertise, so I asked for an expert opinion. Mr. JP Holding was happy to oblige: Pfft,

>>>Here's something else for you to pick apart if you so desire:

<>>>It's Erdman. "Bart D. Erdman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and chairman of the Department of Religious Studies," as he is identified.


It's Ehrman. He got that error off of news-reporter.net or monarchos.com. Tell him to check the &^%$# book cover. :-D

>>> As for Lewis and McDowell, one argues from a phiklosophic point of view which cannot be substantiated by hard evidence, and the other relies on dubious references and second and third hand (not to mention suspect) sources.

Vague and worthless. He'd never survive discussion of specifics, much less interaction with serious scholars like the ones I use.

>>> The problem is there is no hard evidence for Jesus' existence and much of the Bible has equally poor historical support.

Yawn....see if he wants to refute my series at http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html Tell him I think he's a hack that ought to turn his degree back in.

God bless,

JP

OUCH, tough words from a tough debater....won't be seeing this guy on the T-Web anytime soon, will we?