BEL: Bible Scholar Meets Bob 2-18-2003

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goose

New member
HAHA I've got to burn this one to cd. With this mp3 cd portable player I bought, I can listen to dozens of BEL's anywhere anytime.
 

jhodgeiii

New member
WOW, that was a great show! The way Bob picks these people apart helps my (already strong) faith grow even stronger.
 

DarkLordQ

New member
Question

Question

I am the caller John, and after listening to the show I feel like I sounded like a complete idiot. Does anyone else feel like I did also? Please be honest, I feel like I made the BEL show seem kike a haven for dumb callers.
 

Nimrod

New member
Janet, raised as a Roman Catholic said "[I had] so many questions left answered".

Could one of them been, How can I get saved?

Roman Catholics are so lost, and need a savior. Bob seems to go easy on Roman Catholics. It that because one of his stations in Indiana is mostly RCs?
 

Nimrod

New member
I think Bob should have read part of the book before having Janet on his show. That would help Bob's creditability.

Janet thought she was going on a show to discuss he book, but instead she found out that the debater didn't even read the book. If I was Janet, I too would have been angry.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Nimrod
I think Bob should have read part of the book before having Janet on his show. That would help Bob's creditability.
But Bob nevertheless said he was willing to debate her on her book without even reading it and preparing for the debate. You would think she would salivate at the opportunity to debate someone so "unprepared."
 

Nimrod

New member
But Bob nevertheless said he was willing to debate her on her book without even reading it and preparing for the debate.

That is no excuse. Bob should have read something before the show. Saying he "WOULD" just doesn't cut it.


You would think she would salivate at the opportunity to debate someone so "unprepared."

Lets look at what Janet said. "I thought we were going to discuss my book". Was she deceived?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Nimrod, you wrote:
That is no excuse. Bob should have read something before the show.
That's what she said. Bob replied with, "I disagree with your conclusion. For example, people who say it should be legal to own black men as slaves - I haven't read all their writings but I disagree with their conclusion. And because I've studied the evidence for Christianity for over a quarter of a century, I disagree with your conclusion."

What's wrong with that answer?
Lets look at what Janet said. "I thought we were going to discuss my book". Was she deceived?
Bob answered, "I'm trying to find out first if you're qualified to come to a conclusion that Christianity is false." What's wrong with that?

Bob also said, "I will talk only about your book if you do 1 of 2 things. Either admit that you are unaware of the traditional evidence for Christianity or you give us an example of 2 or 3 lines of evidence other than the one I brought up."

What's so horrible about these answers?
 

Nimrod

New member
Well clear things up for me. Why did Janet agree to appear on the show? From the debate, it seemed she thought it was going to be about her book. Now did Bob imply to her that they were going to discuss her book? Ask Bob and clear this up. (I am guessing you work with Bob) What were the reasons why she came to the show?

If it was to discuss her book, then Bob should have at least read some of the book before debating her.

Bob replied with, "...I haven't read all their writings..."
I don't expect Bob the read all of Janet's writings either, but I do expect some. Even Bob admits he reads some of their writings!

Bob replied with, "I disagree with your conclusion. For example, people who say it should be legal to own black men as slaves - I haven't read all their writings but I disagree with their conclusion. And because I've studied the evidence for Christianity for over a quarter of a century, I disagree with your conclusion."

Are we debating about morally right and wrong, or are we debating if it is Bob's obligation to read part of the book before having her on the show?
 

Flipper

New member
Well, you've got to remember that these academic types aren't all debaters. I suspect that she was irked because she realized she was being railroaded - far from the conversation being a pleasant interview with her about her book (and I'm sure she liked the idea of maybe selling some), it dawned on her that the intent of the interview was to attack her credentials because her book was perceived as an attack on Christianity. People who feel threatened or deceived are not likely to be forthcoming. I also suspect that if she had listed two or three of the top Christian arguments, the rest of the show would have been spent defending her position in light of these. Hardly what she had in mind, although very convenient for Bob "desparate for someone to call in who isn't going to kiss my butt" Enyart.

Having said that, I have my doubts that she was confident in her ability to demonstrate her understanding of these arguments. That in itself says nothing about the truth of her book, one way or another. I myself would have liked to have heard what original sources she consulted, whether she could read Hebrew or Greek, and whether she had found some new smoking gun that backed up whatever her premise was (we never really found out). It is my suspicion that that was largely interpretative scholarship, and therefore of very questionable value. I won't have a better idea until I read the book. Better yet, before I read some reviews from reasonably reputable sources.

Frankly, she may not grasp the main arguments in favor of Christianity, but then again I don't get a sense that Bob really grasps the arguments for evolution; his arguments often tend to be a bit strawman or not wholly accurate, although he might be simplifying it all a bit for his audience.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Nimrod
Now did Bob imply to her that they were going to discuss her book?
Yes, and he was getting to it. He just wanted to first lay out her qualifications for the audience. What's wrong with that?

It's not Bob's fault that in laying out her qualifications we learned that she wasn't qualified.

Ask Bob and clear this up. (I am guessing you work with Bob)
No, I don't work with him. Bob lives in Colorado. I live in Indiana.

What were the reasons why she came to the show?
I think I heard Bob mention in the past that he sometimes uses a service that acts as a middleman that finds guests that are looking for self-promotion and links those people up with talk-shows that are willing to interview them. It's possible that this service did not inform Janet that Bob was a Christian fundamentalist who wants guests for the express purpose of debating. Janet might have been misled by this "service" (whoever they are) that Bob was some kind of a neutral interviewer who was just going to lob her softballs for an hour so she could sell a lot of copies of her book. I don't know for sure.

Are we debating about morally right and wrong, or are we debating if it is Bob's obligation to read part of the book before having her on the show?
He is not "obligated" to read her book. Some talk show hosts deliberately, intentionally do not read the books of their guests because they want to make sure they ask the same questions that the listening members of their audience would ask. They feel if they are too informed about the material they will ask questions that are at a junior or senior level when their audience is at the freshman level. So no, a host is not "obligated" to read a guests book. If the host is going to debate the guest (and not just interview them) then the host probably should read it to be better prepared for the debate but if he doesn't read it, then that would only benefit the guest he is debating.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Flipper
. . . it dawned on her that the intent of the interview was to attack her credentials . . .
But then you contradicted yourself when you wrote:

I myself would have liked to have heard what original sources she consulted, whether she could read Hebrew or Greek . . .
So now you do want to know her credentials? Which is it?
 

Flipper

New member
There's a difference between "know" and "attack".

Furthermore, as I don't believe it was her stated intent to attack the dearly held beliefs of Christianity (although the negation of such beliefs as far as one of the gospels go would have been a by-product of this book). Therefore, her credentials regarding apologetics are largely irrelevant I think. Much more relevant are her credentials in so far as they relate to deconstructing John's gospel.

Honestly, Jefferson, do try and keep up.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Flipper
I don't believe it was her stated intent to attack the dearly held beliefs of Christianity
Whether she intended to attack or not the end result was that she did attack as Matthew 12:30 proves: "The one who is not with Me is against Me"
 

Flipper

New member
But you accept my diffentiation between credentials regarding apologetics and credentials for historical/contextual analysis of the gospels? They're not the same thing, but Bob was attempting to equate them.

Speaking personally, I bet she doesn't have a whole lot of evidence to support her position (whatever it was - we never found out) because unless there's some new documentary or analytical smoking guns, then any major interpretative revision is likely to be speculative at best.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
I did not listen to the show, but I think it is incumbent on any talk-show guest to research the MO of the host of whatever show they're appearing on. If you don't like how the show operates, DO NOT BE A GUEST.

Enyart's been around for years and makes no secret out of his willingness to deconstruct those who do not agree with him on air.

If this woman was caught out by a lack of research (i.e. into Enyart's modus operandi) then she deserved what she got. If she's that smart, she should have refused to debate.

I wonder if anyone ever publicly asked Enyart whether he can read Hebrew and Koine Greek, since he is so fond of playing the critic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top