Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 181 (8015 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2014 8:54 PM
178 online now:
JonF, kbertsche, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), RAZD, roxrkool, sfs (7 members, 171 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,747 Year: 9,588/28,606 Month: 1,278/2,455 Week: 588/428 Day: 60/117 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
38Next
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8959
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 436 of 566 (598413)
12-30-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2010 11:45 AM


Re: other scriptures
Dawn Bertot writes:

i did not interpret the text in that post.

there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was,

Thats funny.

You werent looking straight into the camera and waving your finger, were you? You sound like Bill Clinton. "Listen to my words, I did not have sex with that women"

dawn, are you really this thick?

please go back, and read those posts again. i did state that there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was -- but did i go into that in the original post? no, i did not. because that post did not interpret anything. it was simply explaining how to read, the basest level of biblical exegesis. there is quite a difference between interpreting and simply reading a passage.

you should know better.

Its going to take a little while to get back to this post its pretty extensive.

feel free to respond in a way that doesn't simply repeat the same nonsense you've been saying all thread.

Got some RW and New Years stuff going, but I will get to it as soon as possible

have a happy new year, dawn.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2010 11:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 437 of 566 (598441)
12-30-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2010 11:10 AM


Re: other scriptures
Dawn, was there ever a time when you could understand what you read?

What is the subject of this topic we're in? Is it for you to quibble over Isaiah? No, it's about the reason(s) for deconversion. That's a subject that you yourself brought up and yet you have been working very hard to avoid it. Rather odd behavior.

Finding the reasons for deconversion should be a very important subject for you and your church, because you're losing the church's next generation in droves. Was 80% to big of a number for you to handle? Try to picture this then: gather together 5 five-year-old fundamentalist Christian children and realize that within the next 24 years, only one of them will still be a Christian -- barring of course any casualties due to faith healing.

Now, shouldn't it be important for you and your church to understand why that is happening? Shouldn't that be a good reason for you to return to the subject of this topic and stop avoiding it?

I've offered an explanation. Fundamentalists have devised their elaborate theologies and bundled them all up with many bits of strings and spit and whatever else, all wrapped up real tight so that it will hold together. Well, it doesn't hold together that well, not all by itself. It takes continual work and reinforcement and invention of new pieces of string to explain away difficulties (eg, what Isaiah really says). When that continual maintenance work isn't done, or when it's not enough, then the entire ball of spit falls apart, leaving the person ripe for deconversion.

Or another more colorful analogy would be a giant iron tank (50 ft tall, 2.3 million gallons capacity) filled with molasses. When it suddenly collapses with huge chunks of iron destroying entire buildings and releases a lethal flood of molasses, what was the cause? Was it the work of anarchists? Was it a single sudden catastrophic event that nobody could have forseen? Or were the signs of trouble there all along, with many cracks forming in the tank over an extended period of time? And what did the company do when it saw that molasses seeping out of all those cracks? They painted the tank that same color of brown, so that nobody would notice, just as your churches simply cover up the problems, such as the massive deconversion of their children, or blame it on "anarchists" and atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses_Flood

The "slippery slope" may be an informal fallacy, but it does describe this deconversion process. Bit by bit, one's theology unravels. The first bits may seem unimportant and easy to cover up, like seeping molasses, but it all adds up. It can take a long time, even years, before the entire ball "suddenly" falls apart and leaves a huge mess. And as we read one deconversion story after another, we find that they tried to fight that process, but they couldn't stop it.

"Creation science" is a pack of lies; there's just no other way to say it. And many fundamentalists have incorporated it as a major part of their theologies, all tied up tight with the rest of it. And because those CS false claims are so easy to expose and refute, that will be the first part of the theology's unravelling.

AND YOUR AN ALCOHOLIC

No, I'm not. Occasional and irregular alcohol consumption does not automatically make one an alcoholic -- except maybe within your own beady little universe. But even if I were one, at least it would be infinitely better than being a pathetic liar -- Message 199.

... creation is demonstratable in reality and in argument form from design

Then demonstrate it! I have no problem with people believing in creation nor with them promoting the idea, but only if they do so honestly and truthfully. I do have a definite problem with people using lies and deception, which has been how creationists and IDists have been doing business. Now, please explain why it is that neither you nor other creationists have been able to be either honest or truthful. Why do lies and deception seem to be your only tools?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2010 11:10 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 12:15 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 438 of 566 (598561)
01-01-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 12:00 AM


Re: other scriptures
yes, it is. you just have to read it even you said you agreed.

bertot writes;[qs]Secondly, you and Ramoss clearly have a different explanation correct?
Here are your words to Ramoss

actually, i have a more interesting interpretation

Im sorry I thought you said you did not interpret things.

i did not interpret the text in that post. i simply explained the straightforward, literal reading, based in context. isaiah does not identify the child. but it does give a number of details in the text that can disqualify pretty much anyone born after 720 BC.

I know you dont want to believe you interpreted it, but you did. Even after your interpretations you are still not certaiin who the child is or is not. My simple friend that is intrepretation. Or should I call you Bill?

there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was, and all are based in parsing the grammar of the sentence: the woman is referred to with a definite article, and the "is pregnant" is present tense. she would have been known to both ahaz and isaiah, and would have been pregnant at the time. this means the child has to be:
isaiah's son, who is born in the very next chapter, as ramoss interprets
ahaz's son, probably king hezekiah who becomes very important later in the book and relates directly to the theme of the assyrian invasions
representative of all children born at that time, but i feel this betrays the specificity of the grammar
so, those are your options. a child born 700 years later, that has nothing to do with either ahaz, isaiah, or assyria is simply not an interpretation allowed by the text. ramoss and i can disagree about who the child is without making the whole debate "interpretative". we both agree about who the child is not.

Your kidding right, those are my only options, Ive only three vauge choices to choose from, certainly there are a few more. Besides this if any or all of these are my choices, what does it mean if you got it wrong and how would each distinctive choice change the meaning

really Arch, no interpretation, get real.

Those options have nothing to do with my position and they in no way rule out Christ as that fulfilment, if the bigger picture in Gods plan is taken into consideration. Your is an observation, not a valid argument for removing Christ as the fulfillment in a fuller sense.

no, dawn, the problem is that your misrepresentations don't make even the slightest lick of sense; whereas any sane, rational person reading isaiah 7 would come to precisely the same conclusion i have: it can't be aboue jesus.

One. my so-called misrepresentation can be nothing of the sort, when you are not even who or what the child represents. Your interpreting and speculating. Two. It most certainly can be about Jesus if God actually inspired Isa and matthew to write down his wishes and plans

the fact that my approach is simply reading the text, and seeing what it has to say, speaks volumes about your claims relating to rationality.

Not only do you not read the text, YOU DONT REALLY BELIEVE or accept the entire context, that has to with God or inspiration. You pretend at inspiration and use it when its conveient. My claims to rationality in this respect are of course more valid than yours. I atleast have the common sense to accept it all or reject it all.

You honestly believe you have the talent to decide which part is inspired and which part is not, yet you will not reveal the aspects of such a talent

further, you have misrepresented the bible at every turn, even in off-hand quotes. you have even spoken in favour of false prophets.

More false accusations by Arch. Your misunderstandings do not a misrepresentation make, on my part The false prophets were being sarcastic about a method of teaching that would have actually applied to them if they had stop to think for a moment. Thier arrogance got in the way, but such a thing was the very thing they needed

Hebrews put it like this. "For when for the time you SHOULD BE teachers, you have need that one teach you again, the first principles of the oracles of God"

dawn, this is as simple as comparing two texts, and what they say. use your head.

You know young fellow you may not get this now but eventually it will click down the road. Your not comparing two texts, your comparing and isolating parts of the text, forgetting what the entire text has to say concerning God and intervention and inspiration

Trying to make any text make sense without that clear and present principle in scripture is foolish and irresponsible

Bertot writes:

I can only know this if another prophet makes it clear through inspiration, correct. You could only know that the prophecies could make sense if inspiration is real and a part of that context, correct?

Arch writes

no. you have a brain. use it. further, you have given no particular standard about how we determine whether or not inspiration is present in a text. you have simply and arbitrarily assumed it for the bible, nut denied it for other similar texts.

Because I have a brain Arch, I know it makes more logical sense to accept or reject it all, than to intimate here and there about Gods "possible" involvement. Heres a little test for you. Go through the Bible and see which there is more of, prophecies or "Thus saith the Lord", or something to that affect. See which one is more prevelant

Bertot writes

Wrong, Christ in John 16:13, promised the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. All Lawgivers are prophets, not all prophets are lawgivers

They were made and became prophets by God himself

Arch writes;

good. so were the leaders of the church of latter day saints. you might be interested to note, however, that matthew is not listed among the apostles in the gospel of john. in fact, his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. and even if it was, there's no particularly good reason to assume the book we have come to call matthew was written by that same matthew the apostle from the synoptic gospels. the titles of the books, as explained above, are traditional. the gospels were named much later, and do not actually claim authorship, except for perhaps luke/acts. you've never even been to sunday school, have you?

Try and stay focused son, your getting flustered. You are the one that said Matthew was not a prophet but a student. Which implies that you indirectly believe he existed and that may be the author. My repsonse was to your accusation of "no prophet", which was, that Christ made them prophets. Not whether he existed or was the author or it is that should be accepted as inspired. those are seperate issues

no, and as i keep saying, it is not relevant to this discussion. the question is, why do you blindly accept every book of the bible, simply because they are published together? you might be interested to know that the history of canonization is a long and complicated one, and even today, there is a lot of disagreement about what should be, and should not be in the bible. for instance, the catholics have about another half-dozen books in their bibles.

yes i am aware of all these facts and I am also aware of the fact that if God was in the process, as is indicated more than any other point in scripture, he is able to maintain and provide to his people what they need through the ages

"According as his divine power HAS GIVEN TO US all things pertaining to LIFE andd GODLINESS"

As in the first century and as illustrated by the dead sea scrolls, God is able to maintain through time the purity of his teaching. Yes there will always be, as in the first century and any century false teachings side by side with the truth.

Like the ones today and in the first century, the psuedo teachings (Gospel of Thomas), etc,were immediately recognized as false teaching and fell by the wayside

it should be obvious that only recent discoveries of such books makes it clear the people of that day did not regard them as reliable, trustworthy or accurate, so they were discarded in favor of the truth

the truth in the Old and New have stood the test of time and reason. Im sure the same God that created the entire universe could maintain the purity of the written word as is clearly indicated by the discovery of the dea sea scrolls

Yes there are many claims to inspiration outside the standard Bible. However it is my goal presently to demonstrate that not only do you disbelieve the BOM and the Koran claims, but even the one you are using presently, that is repleat with inspirational claims, including Isa

So arch, is Isa from God or man, in your view?

son, you wouldn't know what facts or logic even are. please feel free to critique me when you learn to read, and think.

Actually son, with you there is very little to critique, because as I earlier suspected, you really believe very little of what scripture has to say in fact, even if you are looking and reading Just the text

all of what? which canon are we talking about?
this is really the kind of thing that tells me that you haven't been exposed to much actual bible study. i have one bible, called a chumash, that is just the torah, with commentary and excerpts from the haftorot (in hebrew and english). i have another that is the entire tanakh (or "old testament"). i have another that is just the new (in koine greek and english). i have several more that are both and old and new testaments. i can easily find a septuagint online, which contains books not in your bible. which canon, and why?
the bible simple is not the monolith you think it is. it's a collection of texts, and different groups disagree on what should go in it.

This gets funner by the minute. Yes the Bible is the monolith I thinkl it is, but ironically it is not me that has decided that, it is time, test and reality. Which is now predominant Arch, the divisions and types of scripture you cite above, or that which is commoly recieved and accepted in the 66 books of old and 27 of the New. Of course its the latter.

this is not the only test but it is one that has stood the test of time

Now this could be by chance or it could be by divine guidance. Looking stricly at the text and its reading as you suggest, I see that God has promised this guidance, over and over and over again

would you feel better if i did claim inspiration? of course, matthew does not, but that is beside the point. you simply have no mechanism for telling the difference.

Isa Arch, from God or man?

the mechanism you request my simplistic friend is actually YOUR OWN TEST, its the rules you set up in our discussion here. What are they? "What does the text say" and "what does the text mean". well, I see God, intervention, promises of guidance, prophecy and inspiration, repleat throughout scripture

My mechanism is both the scriptures themself and the simple rules you have provided me. So immediately a simple comparison and understanding of the entire text, more That is unless you now have some additional rules you would now like to introduce.

But this is not the problem or the issue is it Arch.? the real issue and the one you keep avoiding is three-fold. 1. You dont really believe Isa or whoever wrote Isa was inspired to begin with. 2. Because of this lack of belief, it does not let you follow the the very rules you established to evaluate scripture, "what does the simple text say" and "what is written in the text", because you eliminate either deliberatley or in argument form the ENTIRE TEXT to force a conclusion about God overall purposes
3. And more importantly of them all, it does not qualify you to make the assertion that matthew is misrepresenting or misquoting Isa's words, because you choose only partsof his or others writers words to make the

Remember Arch, we are at this point just going by your rules and you dont even seem to want to adhere to your own rules. I know this for a fact because you keep repeating that inspiration is irrelevant, when the scriptures make it so very important

i have never claimed that isaiah wasn't divinely inspired. just that matthew's interpretation is not founded in what isaiah wrote -- thus, dishonest.

If Isa was inspired then it should be clear these are Gods words, wishes and plans and not Isa's

Really arch, lets see about you indirect claim to inspiration. Do you recall the time the teachers of the law challenged Jesus concerning his authority to teach and practice signs. "By what authority do you do these things", they said and he said Ill answer your question if you will answer mine. "Johns teaching, was it from God or man"? Now in truth Jesus had already answered thier question many times before, but he knew there was a DEEPER PROBLEM. they didnt really believe in him at all to begin with, much less whether he had the proper authority

So they knew they could not answer the question directly with any honesty.

latter on it says at a certain point, no man asked or tested him concerning anything.

So lets test your resolve. You say you have never denied it. Ok, so I ask you directly. Isa's teachings and words Arch, were they from man or God? Or which parts of the book are inspired and which are not?

lets see if like the teachers of the law, you will avoid answering the question directly. Because as i supect there is a deeper issue and God, intervention and inspiration do matter

do, the bible cannot make god's plans known? ok. i'll follow you for a second here. so, the inspired matthew reveals isaiah's true meaning. but... who reveals matthew's true meaning? ...and who reveal's that person's meaning?

Paul and the rest of the NT epistles. God though these writers make it known that it is "It is once for all delivered to the saints"

Jesus fulfilled IT by sealing the deal, "It is finished" he fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses.

"But if any man desires to DO THE LAW he is a debitor to keep the WHOLE LAW"

Jesus completed this by the perfection of the his life, death and ressurection, thus a sacrafice once for all

The father sent the Spirit to guide the church into "All truth"

No more explanation is required for any spiritual question. If you think so then present it

the argument, dawn, is so simple it barely needs stating. but since you can't understand obvious implications -- or even direct statements that i've spelled out before -- i'll spell it out again for you.

you have two options, either:
god is honest, and matthew is not divinely inspired, or
god is a liar, and all bets are off
if god is a liar, why should we believe any of the bible?

Or God is honest and those are actually his words in Isa.

agreed! why, then, does matthew misrepresent isaiah?

when you are willing to accept your own rules by including the entire text, the you will see these are Gods words not Isa's, therefore matthew cannot and is not misrepresenting anyone, especially God. Its only and always about God

that post was a concession that the validity of isaiah's prophecy is subjective, depending on when you think the book was actually written. personally, i think it's largely irrelevant, because the power of prophecy is not in prediction. prophets are not fortune-tellers. they are the mouthpieces of god. note that leviticus 20 commands the deaths of people who presume to tell the future.

okay, so, try and follow me here.
god inspired isaiah
god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
matthew misrepresent isaiah

As Ive already stated to many times to mention. it is not Gods intention to supplant Isa's (Gods) words, but give an expanded or greater meaning to his over all plan and intention in the passage. But only God could do this if he is actually the author in each instance correct?

The writer of the passage, "Through thy seed shall all the nationsof the earth be blessed", could not understand its meaning without Gods intentions and guidance through time.

The same would be true for anyother prophecy through time. Only God could explain what his meaning is either in the specific passage or its greater meaning

I see no other (real) contenders for that challenge. Where is the body of writings that supposedly steps up and claims to have fulfillmentof those prophecies and verses, in sucha detailed manner, like the life of Christ and the NT

So, if this is just a challenge by yourself about claims to fulfilled prophecy and inspiration, my bet is that there are no other real challengers to the throne. None that can boast the evidence fo the Gospels and the NT, correct

your conclusion: "matthew must not have misrepresented isaiah". the proper logical conclusion, given those three premises, is that god didn't inspire matthew. not that one of the premises is wrong. to do that, you'd have to add another premise -- that god did inspire matthew. but this is simply an assumption that you are drawing from nowhere.

Now isnt that just plain silly. How do we know just from a simple explanation of the text that Matthew misrepresented Isa, when you dont even know the proper explanation or interpretation. Youve given me so many, whats to say the rest of yours is not simply interprative, or that it has somehow missed ITS MARK

To know of course that Matthew did not faithfully represent God in that passage, it wolud require you to disregard that God has been involved in the process from the begininng to the end

There can be no misrepresentation when in the first place it is not Matthew trying to speak about Isa, it is God speaking about Gods words, to the purpose and fulfillment of a greater plan. Which is clearly and faithfully represented in the NT. Unless you can provide another body of writings that makes even a small attempt to represent the Olds claims

in fact, as i keep mentioning, the inspiration of isaiah isn't actually relevant. it works just as well like this:
god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
matthew misrepresent isaiah
conclusion, god didn't inspired matthew.

This is wrong for two reasons. You dont even know what the interpretation is to begin with as I have demonstrated, or should I say as YOU have demonstrated. 2. Only God can give Gods meaning

which continues to confirm my belief that you really haven't read the bible at all. or if you have, you haven't understood much. after all, to you the text is simply "precept upon precept, line upon line", like it is to the drunkards, and false prophets isaiah was condemning.

You have missed the big picture that is staring you intheface

the problem is that it has to be about what the bible says first, otherwise we might as well just make shit up. the only way to we have to know what god said to isaiah and perhaps matthew is what is recorded in the bible. and if one of them is lying about what the other said, well, it sort of throws credibility out the window.

What the Bible says first in the very beginning is that God is in charge of everything, even prophcies and thier fulfillment

fine. but claims to not always equal reality. clearly, the book of mormon and the quran both claim inspiration from god, and they're both about god's purposes. why do you reject those claims? they're clearly pretty important too.

From a logical standpoint this is ture. From a physical and overall evidenced based position it is not. These books make little or no claims to the specifics of the prophecies as do the Gospels and the NT. In fact those books at times make the same claims as the NT, they derive there information from those events and that source

Secondly, for reasons I have already staed to many times to mention, they fall short as being believed in areal sense

the issue, as i keep explaining, is that you have a mush of the text. you do not differentiate one text from another. to you, it's all gibberish, precept upon precept. you do not see that isaiah is one book, with a point, and matthew is another book, with another point. perhaps there is some symbolic relationship between those points, sure. isaiah is primarily about god and his kingly servant protecting jerusalem through the assyrian onslaught of ~720 BC. matthew is about the salvation of the world through god's son. clearly, one is invoking the other for a reason. but this does not mean that those points are indistinguishable, or that matthew's invocation of isaiah is accurate in its specifics. jesus does not fulfill those prophecies, because those prophecies were never about jesus and were all fulfilled well before he was born.
i know you don't see the difference. but your vision is dim and clouded.

I see the difference, but what you are missing and have since we started, is that God is in charge of these matters and only he can make known the meanings, (Not You)

I know you dont see this point, but your vision is dim and clouded

Thinking that any NT writer somehow misrepresented the prophets of old is misguided, because it misrepresents the nature and purpose of God overall in the Bible

It is therefore no reason for deconversion

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 12:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2011 2:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 444 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 439 of 566 (598565)
01-01-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by dwise1
12-30-2010 9:58 PM


Re: other scriptures
What is the subject of this topic we're in? Is it for you to quibble over Isaiah? No, it's about the reason(s) for deconversion. That's a subject that you yourself brought up and yet you have been working very hard to avoid it. Rather odd behavior.

Dewise, when I say reasons for deconversion, I dont mean vauge examples and illustrations of the fact that people are leaving. Im mean a well set out argument from perhaps a Biblical perspective, or a philosophical argument to that affect

Arch's contention is that the NT misrepresents the Old, it does not. To demonstrate this it is necessary to point out that he is missing the overall picture of scripture

Stay with us and we will help you through this, grammarian Gus

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2010 9:58 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 452 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 10:04 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 440 of 566 (598566)
01-01-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by arachnophilia
12-30-2010 7:04 PM


Re: other scriptures
stick around a bit, dawn. that's more or less the topic of the rest of this board. what dwise1 says is true: when kids raised as creationists go off to college and are confronted with real science, the lies their parents told them are extremely damaging do their christian faith.

The only lie is not including design and therefore a designer, in the explanationof the sources of things in existence. To know that creation is not ture, one would need to know that design did not take place. A completely impossible task

this is the foundation for ID and creationism, not the Bible. they therefore could not have been lied to

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:04 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by bluescat48, posted 01-01-2011 3:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 445 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 6:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 447 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 8:26 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 174 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 441 of 566 (598625)
01-01-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 11:51 AM


Re: other scriptures
that which is commoly recieved and accepted in the 66 books of old and 27 of the New.

OMFG! What are you drinking, little dude?

The canon accepted by most protestants consists of 39 books of the Old Testament (the same 24 as the Hebrew, but with four split in two and one split into twelve) and the 27 of the New, for a total of 66 for the whole book.

Why am I telling you this? Why can't you even bother with being accurate about your own material? Where can I score whatever you are on, Dusty?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 01-01-2011 3:02 PM Iblis has not yet responded
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 8:30 PM Iblis has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 442 of 566 (598631)
01-01-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Iblis
01-01-2011 2:55 PM


Re: other scriptures
And of course, that is just one Canon and actually a subset of the Western Canon, and there are many other Canons.

It seems somewhat funny that inspiration could not even extend to a list of what books should be in or out.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2011 2:55 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 443 of 566 (598632)
01-01-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 12:22 PM


Re: other scriptures
The only lie is not including design and therefore a designer, in the explanationof the sources of things in existence.

When evidence of such can be shown, then it can be incorporated. Otherwise it is a lie.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 12:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8959
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 444 of 566 (598666)
01-01-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 11:51 AM


again. and again.
Dawn Bertot writes:

Im sorry I thought you said you did not interpret things.

no dawn, an interpretation would involve a little more than simply reading the text, and explaining what it means on the most basic, literal level. it might involve speculation on details that are not included in the text, as i did with ramoss.

I know you dont want to believe you interpreted it, but you did. Even after your interpretations you are still not certaiin who the child is or is not.

the text of isaiah does not identify who the imanuel child is. matthew does, but his identification does not fit with isaiah's description. it's really that simple. the text does not say who the child is, but it's pretty clear about who it cannot be.

saying that the child is likely hezekiah is a relatively common interpretation of what isaiah means, because it fits the structure and theme of isaiah, and the historical context. but one has to interpret all of the data to reach that conclusion. conversely, one who does not fit even the most basic qualifiers, or any of that data, can be excluded fairly easily. if i read isaiah and came to the conclusion that it was really about me, you'd call me nuts and say that i clearly haven't read the text very well. the fact that the text is not about me is not an interpretation. it's simple reading comprehension.

arachnophilia writes:

there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was

really Arch, no interpretation, get real.

since you obviously lack any common sense whatsoever, and the ability to read and think clearly about things people write, i will attempt to explain this. again.

my initial post did not offer any interpretation. this does not mean that i do not interpret, or that i cannot point out that there are interpretations. do you understand the difference? i suspect not. i knew i shouldn't bring up interpretation when you can't even read and comprehend. you must first recognize what the text says before you can begin to interpret it.

Those options have nothing to do with my position and they in no way rule out Christ as that fulfilment, if the bigger picture in Gods plan is taken into consideration. Your is an observation, not a valid argument for removing Christ as the fulfillment in a fuller sense.

you have failed to explain what this fuller sense even is ("ITS GAWD!" will not suffice, you're going to have to dig a bit deeper) or why it should negate context and re-fulfill an already fulfilled prophecy.

It most certainly can be about Jesus if God actually inspired Isa and matthew to write down his wishes and plans

if. and if the cart came before the horse... the fact that matthew misrepresent isaiah kind of negates that idea. and that's the whole point.

Not only do you not read the text, YOU DONT REALLY BELIEVE or accept the entire context, that has to with God or inspiration. You pretend at inspiration and use it when its conveient. My claims to rationality in this respect are of course more valid than yours. I atleast have the common sense to accept it all or reject it all.

that is not common sense. it might be common, but it's not sense. there is absolutely no reason that one must accept or deny the entire christian in one fell swoop. certainly, there are many different canons that attest to this fact. further, you have shown your reading ability, or lack thereof, every single time you have cited the bible in this thread. how do you manage to get it wrong every time? that's pretty impressive, i must say.

You honestly believe you have the talent to decide which part is inspired and which part is not, yet you will not reveal the aspects of such a talent

as i keep saying, over and over because you simply do not get it, inspiration is not relevant. it is simply that matthew misrepresent isaiah. it doesn't matter if isaiah is the inerrant word of god, or a complete work of fiction. it really has no bearing on the discussion at all. all that matters is how matthew treats what isaiah said. and since he does not represent it correctly, we can presume that one or both is not the inerrant word of god.

further, you yourself seem to believe that you have this talent. whereas i have deferred on the question of inspiration given every opportunity, you have made repeated claims about why you suspect the bible is inspired ("IT SAIS SO!") and why the quran and book of mormon are not. please, describe to me what method you are using to determine whether or not a book is inspired -- and demonstrate that you've read any of the books we're discussing here by examining them according to those aspects, and in comparison to the others. remember, your criteria is only valid if it doesn't also describe the other sources you are excluding.

More false accusations by Arch. Your misunderstandings do not a misrepresentation make, on my part The false prophets were being sarcastic about a method of teaching that would have actually applied to them if they had stop to think for a moment. Thier arrogance got in the way, but such a thing was the very thing they needed

AGAIN! with thinking that false prophets speak the truth! and i'm sure the fools were correct when they said "there is no god"? and the satan correct when he told christ he could give him all earthly kingdoms, or told god that job only obeyed him because he was so blessed?

You know young fellow you may not get this now but eventually it will click down the road. Your not comparing two texts, your comparing and isolating parts of the text, forgetting what the entire text has to say concerning God and intervention and inspiration

do you really not recognize that isaiah and matthew were different people?

Trying to make any text make sense without that clear and present principle in scripture is foolish and irresponsible

you know, old man, that it's actually quite the opposite. the only way the text makes any sense is without that idea. once you discard it, everything falls into place. the text is no longer a gobbledygook of "precept after precept", but rather has structure and function and purpose. the text simply does not make any sense as one giant stream of nonsense.

Because I have a brain Arch,

i'm sure you do, but that really remains to be demonstrated. please, indulge me, and try to use it.

I know it makes more logical sense to accept or reject it all, than to intimate here and there about Gods "possible" involvement.

no, that's just silly. you would never say the same thing about a science textbook, or a math textbook. it might be mostly right -- but the disproof of that one bit that's wrong is quite valuable to the academic community. further, what we have in the bible is really a library of texts, written over the course of roughly 1000 years, by 70-ish authors (or more), in three different languages. we have books that are history, books that are poetry/song, books that argue philosophical points, books that record the teachings of prophets, and books of law. you would never dream of walking into a library, and exclaiming that one must either accept or deny every scrap of information contained therein. that would be ludicrous in the extreme.

now, i know that you don't see the bible this way. and that is, perhaps, part of your problem. you have no basis for telling the history from the prophecy, the song from the law. you don't even have the ability to tell the words of the song-writer from the words of the subject of the song, or the reason to tell the difference between the words of the prophet and the words of people he is condemning. you probably think both job and his friends are right, because there they are, both recorded in the word of god. you can't tell head from tails -- and you want to lecture me about logic? that's really too funny.

Heres a little test for you. Go through the Bible and see which there is more of, prophecies or "Thus saith the Lord", or something to that affect. See which one is more prevelant

quite a lot of prophecies begin with "thus saith the lord", so i have no idea what you're talking about.

You are the one that said Matthew was not a prophet but a student. Which implies that you indirectly believe he existed and that may be the author.

no, it doesn't imply that. it implies that i was arguing against your point. even if you accept that matthew is the author, as i suspect that you do, it's still silly to claim him as a prophet.

My repsonse was to your accusation of "no prophet", which was, that Christ made them prophets. Not whether he existed or was the author or it is that should be accepted as inspired. those are seperate issues

sure. and paul was a prophet, too, right? oh, and joseph smith. christ personally contacted him. oh, and muhammad. god personally contacted him, too. all of these, of course, are recorded in their appropriate holy books. the question i am asking you is what make the authors of the NT valid as "prophets", but joseph smith or muhammad invalid? what criteria do you use to tell the difference?

yes i am aware of all these facts and I am also aware of the fact that if God was in the process, as is indicated more than any other point in scripture, he is able to maintain and provide to his people what they need through the ages

"According as his divine power HAS GIVEN TO US all things pertaining to LIFE andd GODLINESS"

As in the first century and as illustrated by the dead sea scrolls, God is able to maintain through time the purity of his teaching. Yes there will always be, as in the first century and any century false teachings side by side with the truth.

this does no answer the question as to why some canons have more texts in them.

Like the ones today and in the first century, the psuedo teachings (Gospel of Thomas), etc,were immediately recognized as false teaching and fell by the wayside

so, you might have noticed that i didn't actually bring up anything non-canonical, like thomas. i was only discussing stuff that is in a canon, somewhere. things that are accepted by large numbers of people, and official councils, and such. what about the apocrypha? why does catholicism have it, but protestantism doesn't? clearly, those are both christian faiths. the mormons will protest, too, saying they're a christian faith. their canon has a whole extra section. and adding new revelation is apparently ok, as this is precisely what the christians did.

it should be obvious that only recent discoveries of such books makes it clear the people of that day did not regard them as reliable, trustworthy or accurate, so they were discarded in favor of the truth

if truth, in that level of detail, were a primary concern, don't you suspect that the gospels wouldn't contradict? or rather, that we'd have one of them? clearly, they were using a model that was very similar to the jewish one: inclusion based on the teaching value of the story. accuracy is great, but it was never the primary focus. the bible is a book of theology.

the truth in the Old and New have stood the test of time and reason.

until you consult archaeology, anyways.

Im sure the same God that created the entire universe could maintain the purity of the written word as is clearly indicated by the discovery of the dea sea scrolls

i'm sure he could too. why didn't he? oh, but the DSS, you say. okay. how come my bible doesn't have a book of enoch? fragments were found in the DSS. nobody's really talking about the ability of scribes to maintain the text. i'm fairly confident that at least the jewish scribes could do that. we're talking about which texts were accepted, and which were not. and there's quite a lot of stuff in the dead sea scrolls that is simply not in any modern canon. the biblical stuff is less than half of the total contents of the DSS.

Yes there are many claims to inspiration outside the standard Bible. However it is my goal presently to demonstrate that not only do you disbelieve the BOM and the Koran claims, but even the one you are using presently, that is repleat with inspirational claims, including Isa

i believe i have given you my standard: deuteronomy 18.

So arch, is Isa from God or man, in your view?

gee, i dunno dawn. i thought we couldn't discuss just one book without discussing them all?

Actually son, with you there is very little to critique, because as I earlier suspected, you really believe very little of what scripture has to say in fact, even if you are looking and reading Just the text

i don't know why you think belief is relevant to the question of what a text says. do the words magically change when i put on my magic glasses? do i need special magic stone in a hat, or magic underwear? oh wait, no, that's mormonism.

This gets funner by the minute. Yes the Bible is the monolith I thinkl it is, but ironically it is not me that has decided that, it is time, test and reality.

well, it's your particular fundie church, not you. i categorically deny giving you credit for thinking of something on your own, however misguided it may be. but the rest of us can see structure and divisions and sense within the text. that includes people educated in divinity, theology, seminary, and academic bible studies. or really, anyone who can see the places people have added book titles.

Which is now predominant Arch, the divisions and types of scripture you cite above

yes. those are all current accepted canons of scripture. ask any jewish person -- they've got a torah (five books of the law), a nevi'im (prophets, including samuel/kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets), and a kethuvim (other writings). they're grouped by canonization date, and by priority of revelation. the smallest canon you will see is just the torah, or chumash (from the hebrew word for "five"). sometimes this includes excerpts from other scripture (mostly prophets), called a haftorot. sometimes, all three main sections are grouped together in a TaNaKh (a nonsense word that is made from the initials of "torah", "nevi'im", and "kethuvim").

on top of that, there is the mishnah (which contains parts of the oral law), the talmud (which records many discussions, including references to the oral law), the midrashim (commentary, sort of similar to epistles), and the qabala (mystical texts). these are all accepted canons, all have different purposes and structures, and all are regarded as holy in some degree. of course, the torah is the most holy.

or that which is commoly recieved and accepted in the 66 books of old and 27 of the New.

count 'em again. i suggest looking at a page like this that will show you the contents of the bible, and the major different canons that are you there. the highest number of books i can count in the OT is 61, and that's counting all of the apocrypha, the five books of psalms as separate, first and second scrolls of some books (samuel/kings/ezra-nehemiah) as separate, etc. the smaller number i can count in the standard masoretic tanakh is 24. and even that counts deuteronomy and joshua as separate, when they were really written as one.

so, i'm at the point now where i've realized that you don't even know what's in your bible, nevermind what it says.

this is not the only test but it is one that has stood the test of time

except for all the major churches that disagree. like the catholics. and eastern orthodox.

the mechanism you request my simplistic friend is actually YOUR OWN TEST, its the rules you set up in our discussion here. What are they? "What does the text say" and "what does the text mean". well, I see God, intervention, promises of guidance, prophecy and inspiration, repleat throughout scripture

My mechanism is both the scriptures themself and the simple rules you have provided me. So immediately a simple comparison and understanding of the entire text, more That is unless you now have some additional rules you would now like to introduce.

you've missed the step where if two things disagree, they don't agree.

But this is not the problem or the issue is it Arch.? the real issue and the one you keep avoiding is three-fold. 1. You dont really believe Isa or whoever wrote Isa was inspired to begin with.

maybe i do. and perhaps my definition of inspiration is a little different than yours. but that is neither here, nor there, because it simply is not relevant to this discussion. i know you would like it to be but...

2. Because of this lack of belief, it does not let you follow the the very rules you established to evaluate scripture, "what does the simple text say" and "what is written in the text",

...you do not have to believe something to just read it. perhaps this is why you've never gone and read the book of mormon, or the quran, because you think you'd have to believe it first. no, you do not. perhaps this is why you don't read my posts. it just takes reading. it's not very hard, and i read lots of stuff that simply isn't true, all the time. for instance, just about anything a creationist posts. your posts, and your inane ideas about what "logic" is.

because you eliminate either deliberatley or in argument form the ENTIRE TEXT to force a conclusion about God overall purposes

you haven't demonstrated that you can read smaller context. i think you should get to that point before you try to discuss larger context. i absolutely am not eliminating that larger context, or ignoring isaiah's place in a larger structure of the bible. i simply believe that that sort of argument should be built from the facts of the individual texts -- not formed a priori such that the facts have to shoehorned into place.

3. And more importantly of them all, it does not qualify you to make the assertion that matthew is misrepresenting or misquoting Isa's words, because you choose only partsof his or others writers words to make the

that's all that matthew quotes from that section of isaiah. if you feel that elsewhere in matthew, he brings up how christ actually lived 700 years prior his own birth, and helped save judah from the assyrians, feel free to point out where.

Remember Arch, we are at this point just going by your rules and you dont even seem to want to adhere to your own rules. I know this for a fact because you keep repeating that inspiration is irrelevant, when the scriptures make it so very important

fine. isaiah claims inspiration in the very first verse, and at every turn he receives a message from god. where does matthew make this claim? not john making a claim about a group that he doesn't even list matthew as being a part of. not paul saying that scripture (which scripture?) is inspired. where does matthew make the claim, about himself?

arachnophilia writes:

i have never claimed that isaiah wasn't divinely inspired. just that matthew's interpretation is not founded in what isaiah wrote -- thus, dishonest.

If Isa was inspired then it should be clear these are Gods words, wishes and plans and not Isa's

that's fine. why should i think the same about matthew? especially when he misinterprets what isaiah wrote?

Really arch, lets see about you indirect claim to inspiration. Do you recall the time the teachers of the law challenged Jesus concerning his authority to teach and practice signs. "By what authority do you do these things", they said and he said Ill answer your question if you will answer mine. "Johns teaching, was it from God or man"? Now in truth Jesus had already answered thier question many times before, but he knew there was a DEEPER PROBLEM. they didnt really believe in him at all to begin with, much less whether he had the proper authority

so, um, read it again.

quote:
But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. (Matthew 21:26)

they didn't believe john either. clearly they believed some teachings were from god -- just not john's. or jesus's.

So lets test your resolve. You say you have never denied it. Ok, so I ask you directly. Isa's teachings and words Arch, were they from man or God? Or which parts of the book are inspired and which are not?

isaiah the prophet spoke the words of god. the question of inspiration for the book is wholly different: it was written by a human being, a follower/student of isaiah, perhaps many years later.

lets see if like the teachers of the law, you will avoid answering the question directly. Because as i supect there is a deeper issue and God, intervention and inspiration do matter

to comparing two texts? no, they don't.

arachnophilia writes:

do, the bible cannot make god's plans known? ok. i'll follow you for a second here. so, the inspired matthew reveals isaiah's true meaning. but... who reveals matthew's true meaning? ...and who reveal's that person's meaning?

Paul and the rest of the NT epistles.

okay! with you so far. now, who reveals the true meaning of paul and rest of the NT epistles?

Jesus fulfilled IT by sealing the deal, "It is finished" he fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses.

funny, in my copy of matthew, he says, אלי אלי למא שבקתני, "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"

"But if any man desires to DO THE LAW he is a debitor to keep the WHOLE LAW"

i'm not actually convinced that paul has read much of the law, either. and i know that you haven't.

when you are willing to accept your own rules by including the entire text, the you will see these are Gods words not Isa's, therefore matthew cannot and is not misrepresenting anyone, especially God. Its only and always about God

cart before the horse again. matthew does misrepresent isaiah. that's a statement of fact. it's not based on my opinion of the text, or my belief. he does misrepresent isaiah. isaiah is clearly talking about a child born in 700 BC, and a context that has to do with current events. not something that occurs 700 years later -- the eventual spiritual salvation of mankind would not have reassured ahaz in the slightest bit. he had a very real, not-spiritual, army beating down his door. the passage was about his physical salvation from the invading israelites (and assyrians) -- and a salvation he actually buys.

now, perhaps his son, hezekiah, becomes emblematic of the coming messiah. that might be an interesting topic from another discussion. but that is not how matthew is using the text at all. and your "it's only and always about god" is raping the text of its beauty and meaning, by destroying and context or specificity contained in the text.

As Ive already stated to many times to mention. it is not Gods intention to supplant Isa's (Gods) words, but give an expanded or greater meaning to his over all plan and intention in the passage. But only God could do this if he is actually the author in each instance correct?

can god supplant his own words? or is he bound by promises he makes?

The same would be true for anyother prophecy through time. Only God could explain what his meaning is either in the specific passage or its greater meaning

well, no. that idea is circular. or rather, spiral shaped. if only god can explain what god means, who explains what god's explanation means? you are essentially stating that god's words are nonsense. that's blasphemy. your idea that god's words are indecipherable by the human mind is blasphemy.

I see no other (real) contenders for that challenge. Where is the body of writings that supposedly steps up and claims to have fulfillmentof those prophecies and verses, in sucha detailed manner, like the life of Christ and the NT

So, if this is just a challenge by yourself about claims to fulfilled prophecy and inspiration, my bet is that there are no other real challengers to the throne. None that can boast the evidence fo the Gospels and the NT, correct

i posted it, back in the original thread. it's called "the book of kings". you should read it sometime. not only does it plainly describe the events that isaiah predicted, but those fulfillments absolutely fit the context of the prophecies. there is no stretching, no quotemining, no distortions, no translation errors.

Now isnt that just plain silly. How do we know just from a simple explanation of the text that Matthew misrepresented Isa, when you dont even know the proper explanation or interpretation. Youve given me so many, whats to say the rest of yours is not simply interprative, or that it has somehow missed ITS MARK

because it's pretty clear that isaiah was writing about someone that lived 700 years before the birth of christ. that much is not interpretative.

To know of course that Matthew did not faithfully represent God in that passage, it wolud require you to disregard that God has been involved in the process from the begininng to the end

from the beginning of what to the end of what? you just don't get the point i've been trying to make here. why should i even include matthew in that process? the arbitrary grouping of some church elders, who decided the NT canon? why should i listen to them, and not some other group of church elders?

and, i mean, some of it's common sense.

quote:
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. (Matthew 21:2-5)

quote:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion,
shout, O daughter of Jerusalem;
behold, thy king cometh unto thee,
he is triumphant, and victorious,
lowly, and riding upon an ass,
even upon a colt the foal of an ass.

(Zechariah 9:9)


does matthew really not understand parallelism in hebrew poetry? that the "ass" and the "foal of the ass" are the same animal, simply repeated for poetry's sake? and really has jesus tell his disciples to go steal two donkeys. yeah, what? how does he even ride two donkeys at one time? matthew does this, over and over, misquoting, mangling, mis-attributing, and sometimes even making up prophecy. why does he do this?

the answer might surprise you.

There can be no misrepresentation when in the first place it is not Matthew trying to speak about Isa, it is God speaking about Gods words, to the purpose and fulfillment of a greater plan. Which is clearly and faithfully represented in the NT. Unless you can provide another body of writings that makes even a small attempt to represent the Olds claims

i did. go back and read them. start with the book of kings.

This is wrong for two reasons. You dont even know what the interpretation is to begin with as I have demonstrated, or should I say as YOU have demonstrated.

er, no, the interpretation comes from reading, not vice versa. cart before the horse, again.

2. Only God can give Gods meaning

still blasphemy.

What the Bible says first in the very beginning is that God is in charge of everything, even prophcies and thier fulfillment

sure. i never said that isaiah's prophecy wasn't fulfilled. rather, i pointed to precisely how it was. the question is not whether or not isaiah's prophecies were fulfilled -- it's what something that happened 700 years after they were fulfilled has to do with it.

arachnophilia writes:

fine. but claims to not always equal reality. clearly, the book of mormon and the quran both claim inspiration from god, and they're both about god's purposes. why do you reject those claims? they're clearly pretty important too.

From a logical standpoint this is ture.

PROGRESS AT LAST!

From a physical and overall evidenced based position it is not.

ditto on the bible, btw. you might be interested to know just how few of the names and places in the bible are confirmed from sources that do not rely on the bible. archaeology doesn't look so favourably on biblical accuracy. we have no moses, no david, no solomon. we do have some assyrian contact. for instance, here's king jehu "son of omri" bowing before the feet of shalmanessar iii of assyria:

but, oh, wait. that's not actually in the bible, is it? see, the book of kings neglects to records this defeat, because jehu is perhaps the only israelite king the author likes. he likes jehu because jehu kills jezebel, removes idols from israel, and breaks the alliance with other northern levantine nation-states. it's precisely this fact that allows assyria in the door, thus the defeat. also, his father's not omri, in the bible.

These books make little or no claims to the specifics of the prophecies as do the Gospels and the NT.

yes they do. the book of mormon is full of prophecy. in fact, the modern mormon religion is still reliant on prophecy. their highest officials in the church of latter day saints are prophets.

In fact those books at times make the same claims as the NT, they derive there information from those events and that source

BoM:NT::NTT.

Secondly, for reasons I have already staed to many times to mention, they fall short as being believed in areal sense

except by the believers who believe in them. i think you will find that there are a lot of mormons and muslims out there.

I see the difference, but what you are missing and have since we started, is that God is in charge of these matters and only he can make known the meanings, (Not You)

I know you dont see this point, but your vision is dim and clouded

yes, well, perhaps one day you will put away childish things, and stop speaking like a child. perhaps then, you will come face to face with the truth.

Thinking that any NT writer somehow misrepresented the prophets of old is misguided, because it misrepresents the nature and purpose of God overall in the Bible

not a valid reason, sorry. you believe it because you believe you.

It is therefore no reason for deconversion

no reason can ever be presented to you, because nothing can break your circular logic. keep chasing your own tail. i'm sure it's fun.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8959
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 445 of 566 (598668)
01-01-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 12:22 PM


"design"
Dawn Bertot writes:

The only lie is not including design and therefore a designer, in the explanationof the sources of things in existence

the word you're looking for "creator". god didn't merely design life. he created it. the word "design" is an attempt to obscure that someone is a creationist -- to publicly deny yahweh as the creator. the "designer" could be any god. clearly, this is also blasphemy.

this is the foundation for ID and creationism, not the Bible. they therefore could not have been lied to

yeah, stick around a bit.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 12:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8959
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 446 of 566 (598674)
01-01-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 12:15 PM


the big picture
Dawn Bertot writes:

Arch's contention is that the NT misrepresents the Old, it does not. To demonstrate this it is necessary to point out that he is missing the overall picture of scripture

the overall picture is that you assume a lot of baseless stuff, often in the face of evidence to the contrary. you have to assume a unified scripture as a way to explain away the stuff that clearly demonstrates it's not unified. you have to assume inspiration as a way to explain away the stuff that is evidently not divinely inspired. you have to assume that your beliefs are valid as a way to rebut the evidence that they are not.

that's a lot of assumption. but no evidence. please feel free to provide some actual argumentation about this "bigger picture". i expect length, specifics, discussion of recurring imagery and themes, quotes, academic sources, religious commentary, etc. not pithy blathering about how "IT'S ABOUT GAWD!" of course it's about god, silly millie. now explain the content.

start a new thread, if you like.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 12:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 447 of 566 (598688)
01-01-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 12:22 PM


Re: other scriptures
The only lie is not including design and therefore a designer, in the explanationof the sources of things in existence.

That is not true. Either you are lying yet again (refer to Message 199) or you are completely clueless. Or both.

Creationists have been presenting their claims for decades and, frankly, none of any meaning have been found to be true. Twaites and Awbrey noted this when they retired from 15 years of debating creationists during which the creationists never ever presented any actual evidence nor any actual problems for science or evolution *. Glenn R. Morton noted this when asking his fellow creationist field geologists, all of whom had suffered crises of faith when confronted daily with rock-hard geological evidence that "creation science" had taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning (Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism), whether any of creationism's "challenges to geology" had proven to be true and none of those creationists could think of even one. I myself started to study "creation science" circa 1981 thinking that they must actually be on to something, but have never found any of their claims to have any merit at all, let alone any grain of truth.

Start at talk.origin's An Index to Creationist Claims (actual list linked-to from that introductory page residing at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). Those claims have been exposed as false, decades ago, and yet creationists continue to use them, refusing to correct themselves in the light of the truth. For example, Claim CE011.1:

quote:
Leap seconds have had to be inserted into the year twenty-two times between 1970 and 1999, showing that the earth is slowing 0.77 seconds per year. At this rate, the earth would have slowed to a stop if it were billions of years old.
Also refer to the more general slowing-earth claim that is based on this claim, im CE011:
Earth's rotation is slowing down, so it cannot be more than a few million years old.

The most probably source of that circa 1979 claim is Walter Brown, who apparently had no clue what leap seconds are (even though he was an engineer and retired USAF officer). To his credit, he does not appear to continue to make that claim, though many other creationists still do and it is still propagated through countless creationist websites. One group, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, futilely made An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on a young-earth creationist web site, that error being this very same obviously false leap-second claim. Of the 15 sites, they got a few responses, but in the end none of the sites made any corrections to an undeniably false claim.

BTW, it turns out that Walter Brown is not one of the rare honest creationists. As I wrote on my old website:

quote:
Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism.

For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are). Kenney wrote:

quote:
"In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes."
(CEN Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)

Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.

Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.


I had included that account in an article about ICR's Dr. Duane Gish's nationally televised false claim of a bullfrog protein that had been found to be more closely related to humans:

quote:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
(Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, KPBS-TV, air date 07 July 1982.)

Attempts to get Gish to support his claim failed, producing only his admission that his source was a joke he had overheard.

BTW, that chicken-protein claim Gish mentioned involved lysozyme and also involved Gary Parker having misrepresented the Dickerson and Geis book from which it was quote-mined. Yet another creationist lie.

We could go on like this for days, Dawn. In short, "creation science" is indeed a pack of lies. And making a pack of lies an integral part of your theology (which is what YECs, who comprise a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians, do) is an extremely foolish thing to do, inviting certain disaster for one's faith.

Unless you'd like to argue that making a pack of lies an integral part of your theology is a good thing. It would be interesting for you to come out at least on this point.


{* FOOTNOTE:
Professors William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey taught in the Biology Department at San Diego State University, where they used to run a true two-model course, in which half the lectures were given by creationists, but they had to discontinue it after protests by Christian clubs. In 1977, they pioneered the successful debating strategy of researching creation science claims beforehand and then presenting what the evidence really showed or what the misquoted source had actually said.
In 1993, they announced their retirement from the fray and described their very last debate on 1993 April 29. The description of the debate was preceeded by a summation of their experiences in those 15 years, of what they had hoped to learn, and of what they had learned. They had entered into debates with the hope and expectation that:

quote:
"... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet."
(Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey 1993. Our last debate; our very last. Creation/Evolution 33:1-4.)

What did they discover after those 15 years? Complete disillusionment with the creationists. None of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.
}


To know that creation is not ture, one would need to know that design did not take place.

Nobody has been talking about creation not being true, least of all me. It's "creation science" that is not true. There's a huge difference. Creation is a religious belief, whereas "creation science" is a systematic deception created specifically for the purpose of circumventing the US court system in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas, which no longer allowed "monkey laws" to bar the teaching of evolution for religious reasons.

And also, nobody has been able to show any evidence of design. Nor even offered any methodology for detecting or determining design (unlike archaeologists like Coyote). Not only have you failed to, but you have persistently refused to even attempt to.

this is the foundation for ID and creationism, not the Bible. they therefore could not have been lied to

Sorry, Dawn, but that is yet another lie. Creationism is based on the Bible ... OK, rather, it is based on what fundamentalists think is how they must interpret the Bible. Regardless of whether it really is based on the Bible, creationists at least believe that it is. ID is only a bit problematic on this point.

Since they could no longer use religious reasons for barring the teaching of evolution in the public schools, the anti-evolution movement, which was by far a religious movement (at least we might be able to surmise that there were some individuals in it for purely non-religious reasons, even though we know of none), deliberate chose to hide its religious basis so that it could falsely claim to have "purely scientific" reasons to oppose the teaching of evolution and it took its already existing body of Bible-based creationist literature and performed a superficially scrubbing of all overt biblical references in order to support that basic lie. It's described as their game of "Hide the Bible". And when "creation science" was identified by the courts as religious, they then embraced ID as a further game of "Hide the Creationism". Though now ID has also been identified in court as just a cover for "creation science" and hence also religious. Time for them to come up with yet another deception.

Now, ID has not been around for quite as long. Even though it has now merged with "creation science", it had a slightly different origin. Its founders seem to have more of a philosophical difficulty with science and with evolution, complaining of philosophical materialism (which science does not employ) and wanting science to include the supernatural (specifically, Judeo-Christian supernaturalism) in its methodology, more specifically to include the Judeo-Christian god as Creator, known in their weasel-wording as "the Designer" -- even though they will give lip-service to aliens or panspermia or the like, those are just covers and diversions. They have been better at hiding their religious motives and are better at writing pseudo-scientific bullshit than creationists have been. While they are not married to young-earth creationism, even though they are more than happy to cater to that crowd, their theology appears to be little more than "God of the Gaps", as demonstrated by an essay by Phillip Johnson in which he voiced his major objection to evolution: it leaves God with nothing to do. Which anyone who believes in God as the Creator of everything can see as bad theology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 12:22 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 8:57 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 453 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 10:18 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 460 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2011 1:52 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 448 of 566 (598689)
01-01-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Iblis
01-01-2011 2:55 PM


Re: other scriptures
The canon accepted by most protestants consists of 39 books of the Old Testament (the same 24 as the Hebrew, but with four split in two and one split into twelve) and the 27 of the New, for a total of 66 for the whole book.

Why am I telling you this? Why can't you even bother with being accurate about your own material? Where can I score whatever you are on, Dusty?

Sorry I was moving throught that post rather quickly, thanks for that technical correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2011 2:55 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Iblis, posted 01-02-2011 8:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 449 of 566 (598692)
01-01-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by dwise1
01-01-2011 8:26 PM


Re: other scriptures
Nobody has been talking about creation not being true, least of all me. It's "creation science" that is not true. There's a huge difference. Creation is a religious belief, whereas "creation science" is a systematic deception created specifically for the purpose of

Ok, I see what your saying, its simply that you and i are using the words Creation science differently. creation in my view is a design based science, due to its logical approach in the absense of that which is provable, yet demonstratable from a physical reality and logical proposition

if someone else is describing what you are rebutting as science, i cannot argue that point. I can say however that design is science because it bases itself in observation of clear design in reality reality, using a logical and sound proposition for its conclusion, the conclusion of which is irrefutable and irresistible

this removes creation concept and or design far from any religious idea

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 8:26 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 9:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 451 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 9:53 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8959
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 450 of 566 (598698)
01-01-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 8:57 PM


Re: other scriptures
you didn't read that post either, did you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 8:57 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
38Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014