BEL: Bible Scholar Meets Bob 2-18-2003

[Goose]

Bible Scholar Meets Bob (http://kgov.com/BEL/2003/20030218-BEL034.mp3)
Janet Tyson refutes... what?
Tue. 2-18-03 #033

[Knight]

Oh man.... great show!!! People get so cranky when their fraud is exposed! :)

[Goose]

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]

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

[Jefferson]

Welcome to TOL jhodgeiii.

[DarkLordQ]

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.

[Jefferson]

John:

I think you sounded great. Are you going to purchase The Plot?

[Nimrod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..."[QUOTE]

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!

[QUOTE]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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Ash1]

I usually enjoy listening to Bob debate people, but I have mixed feelings about this one. I think Bob scared her away too quickly. He did reveal that she doesn't have much knowledge of apologetics (if any), but it would've been better to hear him refute what's in the book.

Also, there were a few mix-ups about the word 'bias' that didn't fit too well.

Anyone else feel this way?

EA
Saitama Japan

[Ages]

Might I suggest that anyone that presupposes to write a book attacking christianity ought to have a modest ammount of knowledge about the subject. One wonders how you can get a masters degree in religion without studing religion.:confused:
This is the first time I have ever heard Mr E. I thought he was actually plesant, and showed a great deal of restraint.

[Goose]

I agree with both of you Ash and Ages. Bob did scare her off but it was just because he was trying to validate her authority and see of people should even waste there time reading her book. She said it was to spark debate, but Enyart seemed like it would be just a waste of time to read the book if she didn't have any validity.

Just because something is accurate doesn't mean it's valid.

[Ash1]

Goose and Ages made some good points.

But I still wanted to hear a debate involving the books contents. It would have been nice to hear Tyson's reaction to some of the evidence she's never heard before.

It's a shame more skeptics aren't available for debate on the show. I remember one entertaining debate Bob had with skeptic Michael Shermer. Eventually Shermer was so flustered he starting throwing empty insults at Bob, started saying irrational things, and then hung up. After the slaughter, I looked at Shermer's website, and he had a book called something like 'How to Debate Creationists'. Maybe he forgot to read his own book, because he lost badly. :eek:

I'd like to hear Bob vs Marlyn Manson (or seeing it on TV would be even better).

EA

[Knight]

Originally posted by Ash1
Goose and Ages made some good points.

But I still wanted to hear a debate involving the books contents. It would have been nice to hear Tyson's reaction to some of the evidence she's never heard before.

It's a shame more skeptics aren't available for debate on the show. I remember one entertaining debate Bob had with skeptic Michael Shermer. Eventually Shermer was so flustered he starting throwing empty insults at Bob, started saying irrational things, and then hung up. After the slaughter, I looked at Shermer's website, and he had a book called something like 'How to Debate Creationists'. Maybe he forgot to read his own book, because he lost badly. :eek:

I'd like to hear Bob vs Marlyn Manson (or seeing it on TV would be even better).

EA Shermer was the nut that stated.... "the sun IS NOT a light".

That show was hilarious!

[Goose]

Originally posted by Ash1
I'd like to hear Bob vs Marlyn Manson (or seeing it on TV would be even better).

EA I wish I could see the episodes of Politically Incorrect when Bob was guest.

[1Way]

That was a funny deal. What a wimp she was, well, except for personally attacking the show’s host because he kept wanting to verify her background and qualifications to see if she really understands the issue she is attacking.

And, what was that about “mopping the floor with her”? Bob never made a single argument against her or her ideas, just that he disagreed with her conclusion, and implied that one should be able to demonstrate an informed understanding of the view you are opposing, preferably their better arguments that you would evidently claim to refute.

She simply would not (and mostly likely could not) demonstrate that her credentials and training were valid and not totally one sided.

The argument she came up with to support the Christian faith, was that

While she was writing her book a woman said that we KNOW that he rose from the dead, because the Bible says so. (Circular reasoning)

That was really lame.

At another point, while she stammered for something to say, Bob graciously listed about a dozen scientific disciplines to choose from, and reminded her of about a dozen different professions who have authored probably thousands of books which have undoubtedly sold hundreds of thousands of copies, all of which are about the best selling book ever written. He mentioned that he has read perhaps some 30 such books that apologetically defend the Christian faith. And just expected that if she really was qualified on the topic, i.e. she has a **Master of Arts Degree in Biblical Studies (UBC, Canada)**, then she should be able to demonstrate that she understands at least some of the better arguments in favor of the Christianity and the Bible.

** see http://www.trippinglightlybooks.com/ourman.htm#Author%20Bio

And all she could say was, that was not the way she approached writing her book, she did not set out to validate or invalidate Christianity, and that she is simply being historical and texturally critical. She also said that she didn’t think that there were ANY good arguments for Christianity!!! And I think she said that the way Bob was treating her (or his valuing the classical Christian arguments for Christianity) was the reason why she was dissuaded from becoming a Christian. (Perhaps she meant both!?)

We Christians expect that an well rounded understanding should always preclude judgments and conclusions. Man are we religiously emotional folks backwards!

LOL What a fraud.

1Way

[1Way]

Nimrod and Jefferson and others – I would assume that Bob scanned enough of the book to have way more than enough to debate/discuss with her. You don’t need to read or even scan the whole book in order to be sufficiently informed and prepared for such an occasion.

And, Bob was willing to let her talk about her book for the rest of the show if she would just admit that she was week in understanding the better arguments for Christianity. That would not mean her conclusion or findings was necessarily wrong.

I think she knows that she needs at least some biblical credibility for her view (and therefore book selling) to be given any serious consideration. She owns her owe publishing company, Tripping Lightly, see link below.

http://www.trippinglightlybooks.com/ourman.htm

And Bob stumped and exposed and shamed her on the very first issue that he brought up, without doing much more than suggesting that she be informed on both sides of an issue before debunking an issue. Her conclusion is that Christianity is false, yet she doesn’t really understand Christianity.

Nimrod THAT is where the intellectual dishonesty was, that is where the lack of understanding proved it’self to be, not in Bob Enyarts camp.

1Way

[JanowJ]

Regarding Janet's being upset and "that they were just going to discuss her book." Many times an author just wants a friendly place to get promoted. They don't like to be challenged on anything. Having been in the talk show business before (and now at a network), I can assure you that she was told that they wanted to discuss her book, but not in details. If she was told that they wanted to debate her book, she wouldn't have agreed to come on.
What she should have done is gotten the name of the show, investigated a little about the show (easy to do with the internet) and if she didn't like the shows format, declined the offer. To me, this shows a lack of research and wisdom on her part.

[Goose]

Yes. Plus, Bob would have let her talk about her book more if she would have just answered some of her questions. He was looking out for his listeners in this way.

[1Way]

Right, towards the beginning, she almost disagreed that she was debunking Christianity and/or the bible! She doesn’t want that issue to ever come up, she just wants people to stupefy and listen and accept her view and buy her books, and that debate and discussion simply be over her studies and findings. Yet she claims that this non-thinking attitude that blindly and emotionally just accepts all the pat answers, is exactly why she has a problem with Christians and their 2000 years of bible understanding. (!!!)

Sure, she may claim to have a purely objective standpoint, and she probably believes that her view of the Bible is far different than the standard view and believes in that view of the Bible,

but, could she really be so ignorant as to not be fully aware that she is

opposing and debunking

the very heart of the central message of the Bible, that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

, and that we Christians have at least some very good reasons for the validation of Jesus’ resurrection? She even granted without hesitation the one apologetic argument that Bob broached on the show about prophecy coming true from the ancient scriptures.

It is common if not customary to have qualifications/skills/training exposed or questioned so as to acquaint the audience with the nature of their background and training. She seems to expect that just because she has a Masters in Bible, that she is somehow above reproach when it comes to her credentials in backing up her claims aginst Christ’s bodily resurrection. Without her understanding, let alone addressing the significant claims from many who validate the resurrection, this ignorance is basically the same as her acting like they really don’t exist, or that “somehow” they have no meritorious baring on the issue. Both of which is quite absurd, and again, it goes against what she claims to hold to the need for objective review, that even though they disagree, it’s a good thing to hear out both sides of a debate, instead of just blindly accepting one view.

She admitted that there are NO good arguments in favor of Christianity(!!!), which I think was really begging the question. She thinks that she is right and that Christians are wrong, her arguments are right or better, and ours are wrong or not good. ... Of course she thinks she is right, she wrote a whole book which debunks Christianity right at it’s most central message. The question wasn’t, does she think she is right and we are all wet, the question was, has she even given apologetics for the Bible an objective professional evaluation, prior to (or even since) debunking it.

A background or bias does not make or break a thesis. But I think her pride and hypocritical methodology got the best of her, because evidentially she values her outward appearance of biblical understanding too much to simply let it get exposed for the shame that it is, because logically, her sales would probably suffer proportionately as the more folks realize that her findings are ignorant of the claims that would debunk her view.

Right then and there, live for all to hear, Bob gave an on the fly example of a “good” argument for the validity of the bible, and she had nothing to add or take away from his example, in fact she simply agreed with it!

So what does she do? She attacks Bob personally, and judged against him for wanting to mop up the floor with her and I think she mumbled something about him being foul too. And that was right when he made it abundantly clear that he was just examining her credentials over the issue she was effectively debunking.

She played the hypocrite when it came to exposing her credentials, her slogan seemed to be,

Just mindlessly accept as un-doubtable fact that I am an authority over the issue that I am debunking, don’t question my training or understanding, just become blank in the mind, and be happy that I shared anything at all about my training, and accept me and my claims as an authority quite unconditionally. But, if you judge or even question my background over the issue I am debunking, then I will sharply attack and judge against you for not blindly accepting my qualifications, and for not just letting the emotional wonder of it all, loudly proclaim the freedom and joy in what I have to share in my book for only 19.95.

LOL

1Way

[1Way]

JJ – Is that you? Hey there brother, good to see you. It’s been a looooong time. Previous sound engineer of a certain mutually familiar media type, and occasionally accepts pizza from certain backstage enthusiasts (?) (smile). It’s good to hear from you again. Regarding Janet's being upset and "that they were just going to discuss her book." Many times an author just wants a friendly place to get promoted. They don't like to be challenged on anything. Having been in the talk show business before (and now at a network), I can assure you that she was told that they wanted to discuss her book, but not in details. If she was told that they wanted to debate her book, she wouldn't have agreed to come on. What she should have done is gotten the name of the show, investigated a little about the show (easy to do with the internet) and if she didn't like the shows format, declined the offer. To me, this shows a lack of research and wisdom on her part. I agree with your post. Remember what she said in the opening segment after Bob said that they disagree on their conclusion, she said, and that is alright, a little fire can be good, and Bob agreed that opposing views can be very constructive, in the search of truth. I think that her position of welcoming objective critical thought and open cross examination (her website prominently claims that she is a staunch critical thinker, and promotes (objective) critical thought, and that her tombstone will read something like, “Oh ya? Why?”), coupled with her clearly defined judgments against emotions based, mindless acceptance of pat answers which she finds in Christianity, both serve against her for hypocrisy because she just could not stand the objective non-emotional critical examination of her pat response that she just “is” qualified on these issues.

Poor judgment, and hypocrisy, what a two punch combination.

1Way

[Calvinist]

Because I don't want to give the impression that I am anti-Bob, I will say here that I thoroughly enjoyed Bob's thrashing of this typical, liberal, intellectual fraud.