The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

Dumplin' Takes a Dump on Faith

Dumplin' Dumbash just makes it too easy sometimes.

The poor sap wants to dispute my material on the meaning of pistis -- secured from serious scholars like de Silva and Malina -- and he does it by....get ready...

....quoting the Bible.

Yes. Poor Dumplin' just can't seem to break out of those old fundy habits; not that his mind is mature enough to even consider it. He does say (he says, but we know how honest he is) that the definition I give "come[s] fairly close to what I would say genuine faith would need to be." (Sure, Dumplin'. That you knew about all this before is just something you were hiding.) However, he says this leads me "into a couple of significant problems." Oh really. I can't wait to hear what "problems" a Bible college dropout can come up with someone who uses credentialed scholarship to arrive at a conclusion. He says that the "unwary scholar" will just nod his head and agree (as opposed, apparently, to what Dumplin' does, which is just nod off) and then, with his head firmly planted between his buttocks, warns solemnly of "the temptation to zero in on obscure, trivial details, to inflate their significance, and then to convince yourself and others that you have accomplished some significant, scholarly achievement by doing so." (Hum. Do you get the impression, once again, that poor Dumplin' is getting that inferiority complex?) Finally we get to the alleged problem, and it is to say that I have found an "atypical usage of pistis in Acts 17" where it means forensic proof. That it is actully a typical use, and that Dumplin' is just stupid, does not occur to him. In fact he is stupid, for he didn't read carefully what I said:

As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof.

Did you catch that? The form of pistis in Acts 17:31 is of a specific type. It's not the same word form as most uses, but it still gives insight into meaning. Even so, Dumplin' proceeds thereafter to make a fool of himself plugging in "forensic proof" anyplace he can find the word "faith," ignorantly unaware of the different form. In the other places he cites, pistis would translate better to "loyalty" or "trust," which would be based on evidence that it was worth giving -- as I noted further on in the article. So, for all you stupid people out there, just replace Dumplin's "forensic proof" with "loyalty" as described and you'll get the picture. 1) "Faith" is not blind. 2) Dumplin' is too stupid to tie his own shoes.

In fact, he is so stupid that he manages to even quote where I explain all of this, and all he can do is say, "Duh. I don't see why the use in Acts 17:31 gives us any clue. Duh." Mind you, this is a Bible college failute disputing the findings of people with doctorates in NT studies who have published in peer reviewed journals. THAT is who Dumplin' is accusing of "poor linguistic scholarship" -- he, who barely had a single semester in Greek, by his own admission, and now, apparently even wants to accuse these scholars of spin-doctoring by using terms like "client-patron" to make something far worse sound more civilized. I think the following speaks for itself in terms of how put upon the poor, ignorant Dumplin' is feeling right now:

Holding’s favorite scholars may indeed have found an obscure, ancient client/patron practice, and Holding may think that he’s got some special access to a secret, scholarly gnosis because he knows about it, but they’ve fallen into the snare of using the obscure to displace and denigrate the original emphasis, as given by Jesus and the apostles.

Ouch. One more Screwballl Award for Dumplin'. That makes, what, fifty now?

Dumplin' closes with a screed that evidence-based belief won't work because he has his favorite hobbyhorse to ride: "Waaah, God doesn't show up in real life and kiss my butt, waaaah." Of course, this from a guy who disses serious scholars as above. The evidence is there, all right, but it's too hard for him to handle. Sorry, Dumplin' -- you don't refute the evidence by sucking your thumb or insulting your scholarly betters.