On Sat, 6 Jan 1996 14:23:20 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
GM>Stephen, I think this is a unfair to Denis. Pointing out that
>someone does not have the back ground is not an unfair or untrue
>assertion in many cases.
[...]
GM>To point these things out is not unloving, but loving...there are
>only two kinds of people who will tell you your breathe
>stinks...Those who love you dearly and wish you well, and those who
>hate your guts and wish to ridicule you. In the case you are
>responding to, Denis was not in the latter category.
I don't wish to prolong this, but I disagree with this simplistic
assessment. Denis did much more than simply point out that I did not
have the background. He questioned my "integrity" and associated my
views with a "dispensationalist" and "fundamentalism", and generally
trie to discredit me personally.
The point is that I did not even claim to have a specialist
background, I just quoted relevant excerpts from OT scholars who did.
None of us are experts in every discipline, but we quote from
those who are. Glenn is not an paleoanthropologist, yet he quotes
from scholars who are. Denis happpily discusses OT with those who he
agrees with, like Glenn, and does not apply the strict criteria that
he applied to me.
Denis never rebutted those OT scholars I quoted from, in fact AFAIK he
never quoted any references of his own. He just ignored those that I
quoted (even though they were eminent scholars like Young, Von Rad and
Eichrodt), but instead tried to discredit me.
I have accepted Denis' apology that he hurt my feelings. I note he
has not apologised for his *methods*, which was the real issue. That
is his problem, for which he will have to answer to the Lord for (Rom
14:10; 2Cor 5:10).
Therefore, my decision not to debate directly with Denis still
stands.
God bless.
Stephen