I have actually been part of this discussion from the earliest part. I have contributed much, beginning 4 days ago, stating how Babylon the Great could be Rome or Jerusalem, even making a list of how since from the very beginning, starting from the Church Fathers, Christians have used various ways of interpreting Revelation, including the:
- Preterist View
- Critical View
- Idealist View
- Historist View and
- Futurist View.
I've answered other people's questions on this very thread afterwards. I wasn't just jumping on you. I've been following this subject since the beginning.
Or haven't you noticed?
Then it got to the point that two of you were going back and forth sticking your tongues out at each other like infants and, instead of offering anything worthwhile, just claiming the same thing: "My argument is based on sound scholarship."
But you didn't offer that scholarship. So I stepped in and posted what I did knowing that you were just angry, not thinking--just being emotional.
You are just mad because I pointed out that anyone can say what you did, like little school kids calling each other names. Your are mad that I called you out, and if your argument is really all that you say it is, where are all these scholars and academics that you say you have supporting you?
Instead of wasting your time calling me a troll, you could have typed out all the information to prove you're point.
But you have no point. You are just angry.
When you give a report, you have to cite your sources, you just can't say it is supported by scholars. Which scholars? What studies? Where can we find them? What books? What thesis? When was it published? Who wrote it?
It's called a "bibliography," and when you have a point, you support it, something like this:
At Acts 21:20, the author is merely stressing the phenomenal growth of Christianity among Jews because the Greek expression for "many thousands of believers" actually means myriads or tens of thousands, and according to the best scholarship we have, there was only about 1000-7000 Christians between 60-70 AD when this account supposedly happened (and not all of them were Jewish).--Bart Ehrman, Big Think: How Christianity Conquered Rome Through Simple Math, 7/23/2023.
That last part, the bold section, is the bibliography. The argument isn't based on the scholarship--it doesn't fall on just one report because there are others--but the person presenting the statement on the text in Acts presents their view, and a voice to help people to understand why they reach their conclusion.
Just saying your work is supported by scholars doesn't prove anything, however. And just because it has a scholar to back it up doesn't prove you are right. The use of a bibliography is when you quote or cite another's work in your method of reasoning. Your work still has to be tested. If the scholar is taken away, does the method of reasoning still stand? If it does, then the critical analysis is called a "theory," and it works. That is critical analytic theory.
If all you can do is quote scholars like "proof texts," you might as well quote the Bible as your authority, like the Watchtower. Quoting others is not proving you are a critical thinker. Being able to figure things out in the way an academic can by applying the methods they use--that is critical thinking.
There's a difference.
