Summations Only

I don't believe that two encompasses seven. Why don't you present that evidence here so we can shine some light (or radiate some heat) on it? Faith has already asked you to do so. And even that does not rule out the possibility that God spoke to Noah multiple times using different levels of detail. I would suggest looking at discussion or references on what it means to be inerrant. You'll find that there is a spectrum of opinion on the issue, with some people admitting that errors exists, but that in each case the errors are inconsequential.I don't agree with that position. Given that major events in the Old Testament are described with inaccuracy that dwarfs anything we've discussed here, I cannot conclude that all of the errors are of no consequence, particularly to someone who holds the position that if Genesis is wrong, God is lying. It is the criteria that should be criticized before labeling the result fallacy. Assuming there is an objective criteria. I would at best call it 'bad terminology', but if the ground has already been staked out, I'd instead direct my ire at the substance of the claims rather than their title.As an important side issue, I'd also point out the difference between no objective criteria, and criteria which Faith cannot explain or even fully understand. For all of her tenacity to what she calls orthodoxy, it is clear that she's not the best representative here. She's simply the only representative we've got that is willing to participate.Edited by NoNukes, : change a couple adjective to adverbs.

Life is complicated. No proverb or witty saying is extendable to every situation. Haste makes waste. But the early bird gets the worm.Early to bed early to rise... Up all night, sleep all day!

You don't need a Bible passage specifically condemning biologists and their theories. The description of special creation of the various kinds of animals in one week is completely inconsistent with the history of species of plants and animals on this planet based on either paleontology or the theory of evolution.

No he hasn't had much success. Jar provides some textual analysis, but quite frankly, I don't find what he provides all that compelling.I would take Faith's exhortation as an invitation to refer to some primary source material, just as you would in any other thread. I'm sure I've seen that done before, and I suppose I could do it myself. I read Faith's statement as daring you to put up the information, because she seen it and believes she can debunk it. Again, it's way past time for a serious citation. That's your call, of course. But I indicated that I was willing to discuss it, and I'm not getting any better response from you. Sigh. Don't bring that weak stuff into the paint. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It seems that Percy does know exactly what evidence I am asking him to provide and that he feels the work required is not worth the effort.

True, but is that really the point? Your statement was the evolution was not mentioned in the Bible. Yes, that is true, but the Bible does describe an origin for men and women that if true, absolutely precludes them from evolving from apes. I don't believe your statement about Faith's counting of Christians is correct, so there likely is no conundrum. I think Faith believes this country is supposed to be Christian, but that it deviated from that path pretty early in American history. She isn't completely consistent about when. Sometimes she dates it from the enacting of the first amendment, but other times she claims that the first amendment has been perverted.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : I must be the EvC's most inept poster...

If I were going to take on the task of doing what seems to be your homework, namely producing the evidence you relied on, it would be for the purpose of continuing the discussion between you and I.

You can show the discrepancies that way, but can you show claims of separate authorship in that way? I'm not convinced that you, jar, and I have opinions on the matter that are worth all that much. Neither would I.

This is debating stuff is supposed to be fun. I don't want a discussion that you really are not into. But that isn't going to stop me for asking you to back up a claim. I'm not likely to read that.

Yes. That's what a hypothesis is. An explanation that matches some evidence. Apparently nobody is calling the documentary hypothesis a theory or anything like a theory.Similarly, panspermia is a hypothesis about the origin of life. Presumably it explains some facts or evidence about life. So what should we make regarding statements like, 'the evidence shows that life on earth originated off planet'. Do you think a hypothesis is sufficient support for such a statement?

With regards to the case against Mark, I'm not personally aware of the reasons why some people are convinced that Mark did not write the Gospel. But I'm also not inclined to pursue it here given the teeth pulling that was necessary to get people to back up their claims about the last time I pushed.Unless I see something that rises above the level of a few scholars' hypotheses, I'm not going to bother. Yes, the evidence for the proposition that a disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel according to Mark is pretty shakey. But the evidence against is pretty porous as well.

Is that how you saw it? Here is how it looked to me.You claimed that 'the evidence showed...' in a post to me (which you quoted), so I asked you to produce that evidence. My question was very explicit, but when you responded you simply gave me an excuse for not producing based on something Faith said. Given that you made your claim to me, and I asked for clarification, that response appears to me to be chicken do-do. Your mileage may vary.After I pestered you for a source for a few posts, it turns out that you were really referring to a scholarly hypothesis rather than some theory based on a consensus about the evidence anyway.Apparently, simply asking for evidence is wasting time. I appreciate the fact that you finally got around to putting something up, but I'm not going through that stuff again with yet another Biblical author about whom the evidence is likely even sketchier. Again, there are hypotheses, which are someone's putative explanation of facts and then there are hypotheses in name only which have been tested to the point of being theories. In which bucket does the Documentary hypothesis fall?

quote:

---

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist,

---

Apparently some modern scholars do not reject the tradition.Percy, do you think such statements are conclusive on the matter? I don't find them very persuasive. Unless you are prepared to drag out the primary materials and dissect them, or at least the opinions in question, what is there really to debate? Why would Faith or anyone else change their mind based on the material in that Wikipedia quote.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay. I won't pursue the point any further. Of course if I were seriously pursuing this discussion, I'd ask you to back up that assertion. But I'm punting on this discussion. Hopefully I've left at a point where I haven't hit new nerves. Your taking a bit too much liberty here. I don't believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, for one thing, and I don't believe the opinions on the authorship of the Pentateuch are relevant to the question to which I posed my objections.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

misguided and likely wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.