DC,
a statement as such is laughable without merit
how can you trash something you havent even read??!!!!
First, when you know NOTHING about a whole field of study, you'd do well approaching a discussion with those who do know with a little bit of humility. After all, this is a massive field of study, which thousands have been dedicating their lives to understand, and you haven't even opened a bloody book about it.
If someone comes along and writes a book on astronomy, claiming the earth is flat, a real astronomer doesn't have to read it to say it is laughable. Some ideas can actually be rejected out of hand, once you have sufficient knowledge in the field.
But I have indeed read some articles on this subject written by these authors. It is not even scholarly. It is junk. Which is sad, because they know a bit about the history of the Qumran scrolls, and have some interesting info to give. It's when they start making up the idea that the Vatican has secretly instructed the scroll team (who includes a protestant and an agnostic, btw) to keep these documents hidden because they will be "emberrassing to Christianity", that I say they are so far out to lunch it does not even merit serious discussion. There are far fetched ideas that may merit some investigation. This is not one of them.
Of course, you may keep on claiming I should read every flat earth book out there, because one of them may contain mind-blowing arguments that proves we are indeed living on a disc. I don't care.
When ideas presented in an article are ridiculous, I don't consider reading the whole book. This is the way all scholars work, since reading time is limited and valuable, and there is way too much chaff out there to wade through.
You, of course, being totally ignorant about the whole field, will keep repeating your nonsense, and assert I should not debunk a theory if I had not read every book written to defend it. And I will say this just proves you never were very educated.
It doesn't annoy me that people go along believing those silly conspiracy fantasies. Not even that unscrupulous charlatans write best sellers about theories they can't even really believe themselves. People will keep on believing what they want anyway.
But for the benefit of those readers who actually agrees with me that the best approach to knowledge is skeptical research like what you find in peer reviewed journals and not speculative paperbacks, I informed you all that Uncle Bruce's assertion that these titles were "solid historical work" is nonsense. What you want to believe is up to you.
An astronomer will, upon hearing that astrology is "solid scientific work", be likely to inform his audience it is not. I am an historian of religion. When having one of the countless nutty theories about the Bible or Christianity presented as fact, I will inform you all that it is nonsense. You are all free to believe nonsense. I don't care. But I will tell you what it is.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]