Sun Aug 18 01:06:27 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Aug 18 01:06:27 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id BAA05309; Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:00:24 -0400
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:00:33 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: Announcing "The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criti
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2065

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
>[ ... ]
>
>>
>>On the contrary, the essay in questions _does_ give a balanced,
>>comprehensive examination of the topic.  It also demonstrates --quite
>>thoroughly IMnsHO-- why it is all but impossible to take it seriously as a
>>model.  Despite much protestation on this mailing list, these things --a
>>balanaced discussion and demonstration of the errors of a method-- are not
>>incompatible.
>
>I should interject a comment here....
>
>While it will be obvious to those who have read my previous posts that
>I do not agree with Maurice Robinson, I *have* come to respect his
>erudition and his viewpoint. It is by no means identical with the
>King James First group, or even the Majority Text group. I would not
>consider it crackpot, ...

Re-reading my earlier note, I realize there was a possibility for
misunderstanding, and I want to make it clear that I most definitely was
_not_ including Dr Robinson --for whom I share your respect-- in this
group...

>  ... merely wrong. :-)

... OTOH, I too agree with this point.  ;-)


>As for hollow earth theories, they deserve to be considered. Considered
>and rejected, but *considered.*

As they have been.  What I object to is this notion that we have to start
from ground zero with every new notion which is presented.

>Perhaps it depends on your definition of a crackpot. But certainly
>conventional wisdom can be proved wrong. The examples in physics are
>endless. A handful of examples:
>
>* ... Galileo... Newton ....
>* ... Galileo, Kepler, and company ...
>*... existence of other elements ... Dalton ...
>* ...  Michelson and Morley ...

Exactly so.  And in each of these cases these scientists presented evidence
and argument that supported the new view that they offered and were --by
and large-- universally and quickly accepted by the scientific community at
large.

Nichael
nichael@sover.net                                               __
http://www.sover.net/~nichael              Be as passersby   -- IC

Back