Talk:Gleason Archer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Bibliography
I am beginning a cleanup of the original list of publications to include as many works by and about him. Will do a final style cleanup when completed. Robbie Giles 12:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is it good enough yet?
I have given this a thorough review after cleanup and probably missed numerous grammatical and spelling errors. After a few days of review, I may (gasp) remove the Cleanup tag. Edit away! Robbie Giles 17:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] regarding the Farrell Till and Gleason Archer issue
TO: ALL
Right now the page reads:
Gleason Archer's credibility has been called into question by some because it has been alleged he sent a error-ridden letter to Farrell Till. [1] Apparently, the alleged letter's authenticity has not yet been verified, however. It appears though as if Farrell Till's allegation is being questioned due to a exchange with another gentleman.[2] However, as Mr. Till explained, "In the case of Dr. Archer, he is considered one of the foremost biblical apologists of our generation, and many of his explanations of biblical discrepancies are based on linguistics. I considered it appropriate to allow the mistakes in his letter to give readers pause to wonder about his linguistic abilities."[3]
I think an alleged letter posted on the internet should be attempted to be verified before accusations are leveled. Has any attempt been made? However, I don't think any verification will be easy because I just noticed Dr. Archer died a short time ago.
I raise the issue of verification because of the following:
I cite the following from Farrell Till:
"Jackson's final act of desperation was a claim that Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia has "classified the hare as a ruminant" and "considers the hyrax (coney) as a ruminant." His reference (1975, pp. 421, 422) did not cite a volume number, but I read these page numbers, as well as the entire sections about rabbits, hares, and hyrexes, in volume 12 and found no attempt to classify either the hare or the hyrax as ruminants. If Mr. Jackson will send us a specific reference and the exact quotation that classifies hares and hyraxes as ruminants, we will publish it in a future issue."
taken from: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2biolo91.html
Now a question I would ask is why doesn't Farrell Till provide the quote from Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia?
That particular issue of Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia says that hyraxes ruminate although it does not classify it as a ruminant! (if I am not mistaken, there are several factors that go into whether an animal is declared a ruminant and not just one, namely rumination).
Now did Farrell Till intentionally withold the information or was it due to error? I don't know. However, I do think it raises questions and that the Farrell Till accusation should be removed until the alleged Gleason letter can be verified. If Mr. Till knew what that particular issue of Grzimek's said, I think Farrell Till should have had the decency to say what Grzimek's actually said since it was a central issue and that issue of Grzimek's favored Jackson and not Till in regards to the larger issue of whether or not hyraxes ruminate (Later I believe Grzimek's changed their mind in a subsequent issue of their encyclopedia in regards to hyraxes ruminating. The hyrax/"cud" issue is a complex linguistic and science issue. Again please see: http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html ).
By the way, if anyone would like to know more about the hare/hyrax/"cud" issue or other complaints Farrell Till raises again I suggest this resource: http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html Personally I find the material by Farrell Till to be of a rather poor quality. By the way, the Farrell Till quote has a misspelling or typo in it! (see the word "hyrexes"). Should Mr. Till's linguistic abilities be questioned?
My solution:
Remove the Farrell Till info until the alleged letter can be verified.
Signed, the gentleman who objects to the Farrell Till info being included yet.
- Dr. Archer has some critics who base their criticism on the entire body of his work. The Till article on the web bases criticism on one instance. I am removing the section and taking off the POV marker. The article needs additional cleanup still. Robbie Giles 12:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
