Flying is the fastest way to get from New York to LA. the *best* way is subjective. If you're John Madden, it's by bus.

Bear in mind Flew was bullied into putting his name to that book when he was developing dementia, so it wasn't his willing choice of title.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/f27SorMvn5U&source=uds&autoplay=1

The only reason we could predict, search and test is because of the very reliable nature of the world, including all the laws. What supernatural component are you looking for? When I throw a ball and I know it will fall. I know that gravity is behind it, but I do not go about looking for this phenomenon or to try and measure it - whatever it is. And I am not talking about its effects in and through matter.

It only makes sense to describe the Bible (in this case specifically the OT) as "wrong" if you interpret it as an attempt to record a historical narrative (or something mostly historical). In this sense, the conclusion that the OT is not historical for events prior to, roughly speaking, the time of David, is indeed a closed case. (That's not to say that more evidence can't be found, but that the existing evidence suffices to completely rule out the OT narratives, most clearly in the cases of Exodus and Joshua.)

In contrast, the "minimalist" position is that the OT is not an attempt to record actual history. This position also has its problems, in that especially for the 800s to 600s BC there are some close correspondences between OT accounts and archaeological finds. This seems to rule out the idea that the OT was entirely post-exilic; even if it was composed then, it must have drawn heavily on historical records.

And of course other people took issue with Thompson; he was (along with Van Seters) effectively overturning significant parts of Albright's work, so of course he was opposed by Albright's followers. He was arguing against the existence of a historical Abraham, so of course he was opposed by literalists and conservatives of all stripes. But the value of his work is unchallenged; any account of the development of the field is likely to mention him. If his work had been flawed in such a way that it should not have passed review, why would it have made a significant impact on the field?

The point about academic review is that it isn't, when done properly, about the content of the work, or even whether its conclusions are correct (which typically only posterity can decide). To reject a thesis because you don't like the conclusion, or you think it conflicts with your conception of the religious beliefs that you think the author should hold, is a demonstration that you adhere to dogma in preference to truth.

What can be dismissed is that there is any supernatural component to NDEs as there is no evidence for such. Zeus could be up there throwing lightning bolts, but we don't spend much time looking for him because natural explanations have been produced and tested. If there really is a supernatural part we need to see the evidence.

Got evidence?

Can be dismissed is different from must be dismissed. Dreams do happens and so do NDEs. Just because one does not understand something does not mean that its existence should be dismissed.

Reviewers as a whole serve to guard the discipline. They are authorities, guardians of truth. (If you think science is not a search for truth, you are dead wrong. Sorry, a lot of people around here keep saying that and I frankly find it dismal. What's the point of building a body of false knowledge?)

Theology is a science, a body of systematic knowledge.

"I disagree with you is in your apparent belief that these two types of magisteria are equivalent." I never said they were. A magisteria is a "domain of teaching authority." And the Church Magisterium is definitely that, moreso than anything you'll find in the field of physical sciences.

Andrew, I'm trying to keep this focused. You seem to be saying that since Ratzinger rejected a paper, he is a corrupt academic. But you've offered no explanation of what he rejected or why, you've actually offered links that indicate many more people besides Ratzinger took issue with the paper and this man's credibility.

You gave this as an example for how Catholics do not peer review, I think (that's still not clear).

I'm sorry, but one paper being rejected doesn't even remotely demonstrate it.

Plus, I was talking about dogma. I wasn't talking about universities, which are not dogmatic authorities (though they do inform and advise).

Last, yes, I apologize for not being a minimalist expert. I was only asking for something of substance regarding your claim. Just saying "universally rejected" doesn't make it so. Do some archaeologists believe the Bible is wrong? Oh I'm sure they do. Is it a closed case of investigation? I hardly can believe that.