John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[Guest]

David Wright is listed at the bottom of the page.

http://www.i4m.com/think/grant_palmer.htm

[_Enuma Elish]

I'm afraid that I don't think you've established that. Kevin, so far as I know, has simply compared you with Gee, and has identified your underlying motive as being Mopologetic in nature. I'm not sure what about that is "problematic". Did you not say yourself that your beliefs color your work, so to speak?

The fact that one’s own beliefs color one’s work in biblical studies does not mean that one’s underlying motive is apologetic in nature. I enjoy pointing out on message boards what I see as evidence that supports my theological views. This of course does not mean, as Kevin suggests, that my primary goal for pursuing higher education is apologetic.

Do you limit this only to biblical studies? Or do you also disapprove of the attack pieces, ala Gee's article?

While I hold John Gee in high esteem, he and I don’t see eye to eye on some issues. I will state, however, that in our most recent encounter, John was kind enough to give me a few offprint from some of his most recent Egyptological publications that I found very impressive.

[_dartagnan]

Clearly, in light of this evidence, David Wright is extremely capable of approaching a text critically rather than simply allowing his own bias to influence his interpretation in the manner you suggest.

I have sad nothing about Wright’s “capability” in “approaching a text critically.”

Talk about misrepresentation. You’re the one who brought up David Wright, not me. You seemed to bring in up as a way of saying, if this excommunicated Mormon doesn’t attack me, then that must say something positive about my “God has sex” argument. I’m saying it means nothing because David Wright is not your typical excommunicated Mormon, and you know this. You were probably hoping I wouldn’t know who you were referring to, and that your audience would assume images of Ed Decker or what not. I mean naturally, if a rabid ex-Mormon Hebrew authority doesn’t criticize your arguments, then that must say something about your argument’s strength, right?

Wrong.

David Wright is not a rabid ex-Mormon. He is your buddy and close associate. There is no reason to expect him to criticize your arguments, no matter what they might be.

[_Enuma Elish]

He is your buddy and close associate. There is no reason to expect him to criticize your arguments, no matter what they might be.

Clearly you've never been to graduate school.

[_dartagnan]

The fact that one’s own beliefs color one’s work in biblical studies does not mean that one’s underlying motive is apologetic in nature. I enjoy pointing out on message boards what I see as evidence that supports my theological views. This of course does not mean, as Kevin suggests, that my primary goal for pursuing higher education is apologetic.

I have yet to see you produce anything with regards to Hebrew scholarship, that doesn’t carry Mormon overtones. One can just check out your profile at MAD and look up all the posts you have initiated. Every month or so you begin a new thread with new “astonishing” evidence that Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet of God. This appears to be your primary interest. And now with your first scholarly publication, you’re out to prove the “biblical God” is a sexual being. I’m just doing the math here.

If you’re really just a Hebrew fanatic with no interest in using it to prove the church true, then one would think there’d be some indication of this.

[_dartagnan]

Clearly you've never been to graduate school.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

But what else is new?

[_The Dude]

"Really? What was your nom de guerre?"

Put up, or shut up, right?

On a.r.m. I think I was Neo... short for Neoptolemus, sometimes Bellerophon or Aristaios (I think).

On ZLMB and FAIR I was both Julian Apostate and Hyrum/Hiram Page.

Here I was Hiram Page, I think, which was shortly before I took a break.

I have done and said plenty of silly things in my time, some of which seem to have gotten my IP address blocked at MA&D. I hope you guys will allow me a fresh start.

Hiram Page! Welcome back, man.

[_dartagnan]

Hyrum Page?

Hey where the heck have you been?

I'm assuming you're the same Hyrum Page I knew from the FAIRboards about a year ago.

[_Trevor]

Good to see you, Dude and Kevin.

Yup, I am that guy. I was finishing a dissertation and working my first year as an asst. prof.

Hope to see guys around here a little more!

[Guest]

I have yet to see you produce anything with regards to Hebrew scholarship, that doesn’t carry Mormon overtones.

I've already discussed this issue. Since I was raised a Mormon, since I am a Mormon, one should correctly expect that everything I do carries a Mormon overtone.

One can just check out your profile at MAD and look up all the posts you have initiated. Every month or so you begin a new thread with new “astonishing” evidence that Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet of God. This appears to be your primary interest.

The MAAD Board is devoted to LDS apologetics. What should I discuss there? Islam?

And now with your first scholarly publication, you’re out to prove the “biblical God” is a sexual being. I’m just doing the math here.

I've actually had several scholarly publications. And, as mentioned, my first non-LDS scholarly publication does not deal with the biblical God as a sexual being. It deals with the divine council of Gods in Amos.

If you’re really just a Hebrew fanatic with no interest in using it to prove the church true, then one would think there’d be some indication of this.

I've never claimed to be just a Hebrew fanatic. I'm much more fanatical about the Chargers, surfing, and Bob Dylan than Hebrew.

My interest in Hebrew and the other Semitic languages only exists so that I can interpret ancient literary texts.