Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

In the latest round of the Land Promise debate we have this amusing skein of laziness by Skeptic X. I noted that James Barr's book Biblical Words for Time had superseding research on the meaning of 'olam and suggested that Skeptic X needed to pick it up for himself. Here is how the man in the La-Z-Boy responds:

No, I won't "need" to "pick up" Barr's book and refute anything, because a debater has no obligation to go to a URL or a book cited by his opponent and undertake to read it and "refute" whatever was said here.

Understand what Skeptic X is saying here: he says he has no obligation to do homework and to check the validity of his arguments against contemporary scholarship. So he feels perfectly free to slap down whatever he wants to say, based on his own primitive and uninformed readings. Not "well, I will check it later when time permits," which would be perfectly acceptable. Not, "maybe Barr has something to say, and it is possible that I could do further research." No, Skeptic X states unequivocally that he has "no obligation" to do any further looking. In other words, it doesn't matter one bit to him if he's spreading around misinformation.

In the first place, [Holding] hasn't even quoted what Barr said, so we don't know exactly what it is that Barr said about 'olam that I should "refute." If, for example, I had said earlier that Frank Moore Cross said in From Epic to Canon that land grants in suzerainty treaties were unconditional, so if [Holding] wishes to refute Cross's arguments, he will need to pick up From Epic to Canon and do so, I'm sure [Holding] would be telling me exactly what I am now telling him.

We already said quote clearly what Barr said about 'olam, that it means "in perpetuity". A direct quote isn't needed, and Skeptic X would still be responsible to check things even if we provided a direct quote. Beyond that note how Skeptic X arrogantly assumes his own reaction upon us as some sort of lame justification for his behavior. No, Skeptic X, I would not say back to you that I have "no obligation" to check Cross. Within 2 days of discovering your cite of Cross, I had my productive self down to the local college library, which had a copy of From Epic to Canon (and where I confirmed that you, or rather your disciple, had prostituted Cross by misapplying his words, to say nothing of having made a gross citation error), and checked Cross against what you wrote. I would only take longer if it happened that From Epic to Canon was not locally available and I needed to get it by other means. Nevertheless, this is the kind of back-checking that Skeptic X is too lazy and irresponsible to do, and his "you would say the same" excuse is a lot of baloney from the Baloney King.

I took the time to quote what Cross had said on this subject and to document where he said it, so if Barr said anything particularly relevant about the meaning of 'olam that [Holding] thinks will sustain his position and refute mine, he should tell us what it is and where we can find it in Barr's book.

Skeptic X's laziness is not an excuse; we gave what was needed; Barr's book is indexed by the words he discusses, and if Skeptic X is too lazy to be a responsible informer, then let that speak to those who read and trust him, as well as to those who think he might have anything worthwhile to say. We do not need to quote an argument to use it effectively, and if Skeptic X thinks he can call a bluff, then let him get out of his La-Z-Boy and do so. As it is it is clear that he prefers to let his bombast do the talking.

We would also note as an example of Skeptic X's laziness statements like this one:

He also needs to support his assertion with either some kind of reputable scholarship--which would not be the kind that publishes in Grand Rapids, Michigan--or quotations of ancient suzerainty treaties that show that what he is claiming was indeed an "Ancient Near Eastern concept," or even better, he should do both.

Readers should note that this arbitrary designation of what is published in Grand Rapids as not being "reputable scholarship" is no more an argument than it would be if I said, "Skeptic X needs to support his assertions with some kind of reputable scholarship, not the kind published in Buffalo, New York, or in Canton, Illinois" -- is that an argument? No, it is Skeptic X the Lazy committing the genetic fallacy and trying to score cheap debate points with a gullible readership that he knows already agrees with him. If Skeptic X had the mental wherewithal, he would cease such blattering and get out and do some actual research, and evaluate arguments critically. As it is, that he prostitutes scholars like Cross, who actually end up agreeing with what we say or elucidating upon it, suggests that he's too deep in a hole of his own overconfident incompetence to make such an effort.