|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: They did die, as a result of the Fall, they physically died, they were no longer immortal, but death began right away with the death of powers and capacities they had previously had. Utter Bullshit Faith and totally non-Biblical. You really refuse to actually read the Bible just like so many "Biblical Christians" Adam & Eve were NEVER immortal according to the Genesis 2&3 myth, death existed before they were even created according to the Genesis 2&3 myth and they lost no powers but rather gained powers they had not had before according to the Genesis 2&3 myth. But please keep providing evidence that Biblical Inerrancy is simply dishonest, based on ignorance and denial of what is actually written in the Bible and the assumption that the followers are incapable of reason or connecting with reality. Also, in case you had not noticed, but the Westminster Catechism is also not the Bible but rather like the Chicago Statement of Faith another example of defining dogma, in the case of the Westminster Catechism to try to hide the contradictions between the Scottish and English Protestant churches. It is as much political as theological. Edited by jar, : cover Westminster Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith is like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. There have been many such documents produced for the Church down the centuries, to spell out the fundamental principles of the faith. There were many Confessions of Faith for instance, all very similar to each other, and many Catechisms, and Councils, such as the Council of Dort which put out a document declaring Calvinism against Arminianism, and Creeds and so on. They aren't given status anywhere near equal to the Bible of course, but they are considered to be very important learning tools that express the beliefs adhered to by believers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: They aren't given status anywhere near equal to the Bible of course, but they are considered to be very important learning tools that express the beliefs adhered to by believers. They express the beliefs adhered to by those who believe those things; in other words, the dogma. BUT they are not Biblical and there is NO Fall in the Bible and Adam & Eve were never immortal and Death entered the world before Adam & Eve were created and they lost no powers but instead became more like God and THOSE facts are Biblical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Come on Faith, are you going to back this up? Or is it just a silly personal attack with no substance. (You can guess what I think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Romans 5:12 was quoted, by you Faith to support an idea of no death (I should point out that I do feel that Genesis does describe an ideal situation of non-carniverous humans AND animals before something went wrong).
Here is a quote of the verse and the following verses.
quote: There is so much more (in the following chapters) I could quote to show an even better context of what Paul is saying. Here is chapter 6 Romans 6 KJV - What shall we say then? Shall we - Bible Gateway Chapter 7 of Romans.
quote: Chapter 8
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
What does Romans 5:14 mean when it said death stopped reigning during Moses time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What does Romans 5:14 mean when it said death stopped reigning during Moses time? But it doesn't say that. It is saying that we would expect sin to be imputed when the law was given through Moses, and that death would then enter with that law, but Paul is saying that as a matter of fact sin and death reigned from Adam to Moses before the Law was given. It didn't stop reigning when the Law was given, the point is just that it was already reigning before the Law was given, it began with the sin of Adam and continues to the present.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Although "sin is not imputed when there is no law," says Paul, "NEVERTHELESS death reigned from Adam to Moses..." that is, before the Law was given. He's talking about that period, not saying anything stopped when Moses came, just saying that although normally we'd expect sin to be imputed because law had been given, as a matter of fact it was already reigning, and death with it, before the Law was given by Moses. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The reason why the objections to Biblical Inerrancy is rejected is that Biblical Inerrantists don’t care about what the Bible says.
The geocentric cosmology of Genesis 1 is dishonestly evaded.
Message 83 Message 105 Acts is read out of context to pretend that Peter accepted that Ananias and Sapphira had a right to hold back money when Peter was only stating that they had no excuse for doing so. Even after being corrected in this very point
Message 713 Faith even falsely claims that discriminating against gays is following God’s law when there is no law in the Bible that justifies such discrimination in violation of the secular law - which the Bible commands Christians to obey. Message 1186 Anyone who really believed the Bible would do none of those things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Anyone that believed Jesus taught moral principles would know that Jesus said reality supersedes God's Laws and even God agreed that mere common courtesy is sufficient justification for ignoring God's Laws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: It seems that Paul is talking about consciousness of morals and rules. The Law of Moses brought about a consciousness of sin. (If people could follow all the laws, and be holy, then sin/death would not rule over the person) Paul seems to be saying the Jesus allowed for people to abandon the law but be perfect. (conscious of sin, and truly free of sin just by being free of the law WITH awareness of sin)
quote: And death could have been defeated, in theory, with the law. Paul said it was defeated by people becoming Christian. So death is another word for sin. It is semantic. Death defeated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
LNA writes: Faith writes: But it doesn't say that. It is saying that we would expect sin to be imputed when the law was given through Moses, and that death would then enter with that law, but Paul is saying that as a matter of fact sin and death reigned from Adam to Moses before the Law was given. It didn't stop reigning when the Law was given, the point is just that it was already reigning before the Law was given, it began with the sin of Adam and continues to the present. It seems that Paul is talking about consciousness of morals and rules. The Law of Moses brought about a consciousness of sin. Yes, instead of saving us from sin it condemns us by making us more aware of it.
(If people could follow all the laws, and be holy, then sin/death would not rule over the person) True but there is no fallen human being who is capable of that. Only Jesus Christ was able to obey the Law perfectly and His perfect obedience is now imputed to those who believe in Him as part of our salvation.
Paul seems to be saying the Jesus allowed for people to abandon the law but be perfect. We don't exactly "abandon" the Law, it simply does not condemn us any more if we are saved by Christ since He paid for our sins under the Law. The Law simply condemns everybody because all sin in Adam, but in Christ we are saved so it no longer condemns us.
(conscious of sin, and truly free of sin just by being free of the law WITH awareness of sin) Consciousness of sin under the Law is for fallen humanity who are still in Adam. Once we are in Christ we also lose the consciousness of sin because He has freed us from its condemnation.
LNA writes: Faith writes: Although "sin is not imputed when there is no law," says Paul, "NEVERTHELESS death reigned from Adam to Moses..." that is, before the Law was given. He's talking about that period, not saying anything stopped when Moses came, just saying that although normally we'd expect sin to be imputed because law had been given, as a matter of fact it was already reigning, and death with it, before the Law was given by Moses. And death could have been defeated, in theory, with the law. If anyone could obey it perfectly that person could have been obedient enough all along since Adam too. But actually since he's a descendant of Adam's he's fallen anyway and therefore condemned by his own original sin, so no, there's no way law could ever be the means of salvation or the defeat of death.
Paul said it was defeated by people becoming Christian. By believing in Christ, by being IN Christ, who DID obey the Law perfectly besides paying for our sins with His own undeserved death. Christ defeated death for us.
So death is another word for sin. It is semantic. No, sin is violation of God's Law; death is the consequence of violating God's Law.
Death defeated. Yes, Christ defeated death. The Puritan John Owen wrote a book titled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Christ died in OUR place, bearing OUR sins and taking OUR consequences upon Himself, died OUR death for us so that we don't have to suffer for eternity. He'd perfectly obeyed the Law during His life and then He died our death for us. That's how we are saved from the Law's condemnation and can have eternal life. It's all because of Christ's willing sacrifice of Himself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
This whole issue of "original sin" is absent in the entire Bible (Except for 4 Ezra or 2 Esdras)
BIBLE VERSES ABOUT SINS OF THE FATHER Faith, you said this:
quote: Paul speaking against "The Law" might be the rub of this whole thing. Paul said that we have responsibility for sins. See Romans 3:9-19
ROMANS CHAPTER 3 KJV Here is 3:31 (all scriptural quotes will be taken from the above site)
quote: Steve Mason's annotations, in Early Christian Reader, will be quoted throughout this post.
quote: Romans 4
quote: Mason notes:
quote: The LXX is the Septuagint The Hebrew text behind the King James Old Testament is MT. Romans 4:4-11
quote: Mason notes:
quote: Paul had some difficulty pinning the exact origin of commandments, though his letters were probably written without knowledge of THE FUTURE Biblical Inerrancy and especially he must have not known his very words would somehow be "sacred scripture" one day. Romans 4:12-18
quote: Mason notes:
quote: Romans 4:19-24
quote: Mason's verse 24 note:
quote: I will skip 4:25 Now Romans 5:1-9
quote: Mason notes
quote: Romans 5:10-12
quote: Mason notes:
quote: Romans 5:13-14
quote: Mason notes:
quote: 2 Esdras 3:21-27 is what scholars call 4 Ezra chapter 1:21-27 It can be read on the King James site, and it is the only "Old Testament" book to find the Original Sin idea. Romans 6
quote: Mason says this about verse 14
quote: Chapter 7 is odd. verse 1
quote: Mason notes
quote: verse 2
quote: Mason notes:
quote: 7:3-7:7
quote: Mason notes:
quote: 7:8-9 shows us the complications of taking Paul's words literally
quote: The "I" is interesting. Mason notes:
quote: 7:12-18
quote: Here are a slew of Mason notes.
quote: Romans 8 is something else verses 1-12
quote: Mason notes:
quote: the rest of chapter 8
quote: The most relevant verses in Romans perhaps these? 6:14 7:1-4 7:14 8:1-4 8:12-13 or 8:12-17 8:18-25 Other relevant verses 1 Cor 15:20-22 15:42-49 15:56 As for the spiritual issues. Romans 2:28 had a note by Mason
quote: Do you have any issues with Mason's notes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I stopped reading this thread when it got closed, so I'm just now seeing your three replies to my Message 35. The discussion has probably moved on from what was being discussed a little over a week ago, but since I've got a moment I'll reply to your messages now.
Message 36:
Faith writes: Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think. On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on Christian fundamentalism says it can trace its roots back to 19th century evangelical differences between north and south concerning Darwinism and higher criticism, finally resulting in a split in the 1920's from which fundamentalism sprung and whose foundation was a series of essays published a decade earlier called The Fundamentals.Bible inerrancy is not synonymous with Fundamentalism, which is what you seem to be claiming. Then you would seem to be wrong about what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to say that, "Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times." It doesn't. At most it goes back to the latter half of the 19th century. If you think Biblical inerrancy was a tenet of any significant sects of Christianity then tell us about them. Even Martin Luther argued that Bible passages must be tested to determine whether they were the true word of God, see, for example, Reformers Did Not Affirm Inerrancy.
The "fundamentalist" side of the schism was an attempt to enshrine the basic principles of the faith as understood from the beginning, in opposition to the new liberal/modernist revisionism. It was a "new" movement only in the sense that modernism had provoked a restatement of the fundamentals in that new context, but the fundamentals themselves were, well, fundamentals, foundational principles of the Christian faith, not new in any sense at all. What was new was modernism and liberalism. You say it, but you cannot show it. Message 39:
Just as you get confused about what fundamentalism is in relation to biblical inerrancy you go on with even more confusions that I guess I have the job of sorting out. If you're going to begin casting out personal accusations of confusion, then right back at you. I only related what history records about fundamentalism. If you have some other story then you are making it up.
Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition: They affirm and deny a lot of things but provide scant support for their affirmations and denials. Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire,... They don't provide support for their affirmations that anyone would desire, not just me. In particular they provide no support for Biblical inerrancy, they just declare it.
The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author. But inspired by God. They provide no support that the authors were inspired by God, nor even describe what the effects of being "inspired by God" mean, nor even that there is any such thing as "inspired by God."
They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc. Repeating what you're ignoring, they called the Bible a "human production." There is no claim, let alone any support for this claim they didn't make, that their human errant qualities were removed while engaged in this "human production."
When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote: In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago. No, it's not about what they "want to claim." Yes, it's very much about what they "want to claim," because they have no evidence for what they're claiming. They're merely making an affirmation of what they believe while providing no support for it.
They recognize that the Bible determines its own standards,... Where does the Bible do this?
...they are not imposing standards on it,... Sure they are. They're declaring it inerrant.
But today's critics do impose modern standards on it. As commentators on the Bible have done since it's beginnings. St. Augustine criticized the Bible according to the "modern standards" of his time.
It later says that "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture," and acknowledges "that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free." You are misreading this. No I'm not. It's a pretty clear statement that the Bible is not error-free, and this part simply states another source of error.
They clearly affirm that the original autographs ARE inerrant,... Yes they do. In the absence of evidence they affirm the impossible. So no misreading on my part there.
...but that "transmission" which means copies and translations down the centuries, are not error-free and God did not promise that they would be. We agree on this, so no misreading on my part there, either. I apparently didn't misread anything, you just like to cast accusations of misreading and confusion and so on at people. If anyone's misreading anything it's you. You're seeing perfection in a document full of errors and that has been interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, then you're declaring your interpretation right and all contrary interpretations wrong. If declaring yourself right were horses you'd have the largest herd in the world.
They do go on, however, to point out that the transmitted copies are in fact extremely reliable. Did you read any of that? Sure, but once again they made an unsupported affirmation. At least when they spoke of sources of error they were on solid ground., since we know (and they knew) that the Bible contains errors that can be seen and read.
It also says that "no translation is or can be perfect," before declaring without evidence how excellent are the English translations. After this enumeration of sources of error it then refers to "our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth." Contradictory much? Not at all. Then you are turning a blind eye to the obvious. It is clearly a contradiction to concede error, indeed to describe some of the sources of error, followed by an affirmation that the Bible is completely true.
You are simply misreading it. Again, no, I am not misreading anything. You are simply seeing what you want to see, and contriving excuses for that which you cannot accept.
Note the word "translation" in "no translation is or can be perfect." Yes, of course no translation is perfect, and that means error.
Same thing I say above: the original autographs are perfect,... You are declaring the originals perfect without any evidence, and as the Chicago Statement says, the original authors' documents were "human productions."
...while the translations and transmissions are not promised to be perfect and many small errors are found in the thousands of copies and fragments we have of all the different translations. The original books of the Bible by their various authors were imperfect when written, contained a great deal of fabrication and fabulousness, and have been imperfectly transmitted to us.
The last sentence you quote is either referring to the autographs or to the remarkable reliability of the translations we have in spite of the errors found in different copies down the centuries. I believe they were saying the latter, again, another affirmation without support.
This is our foundation. No, this is your declaration. Your foundation is the excuses you make for the errors. Whatever. It does get frustrating having to deal with someone who knows absolutely nothing... I'm sure it does get frustrating when it turns out you know absolutely nothing about evidence for Biblical inerrancy, since none exists.
...and thinks his misreadings... That would be your misreadings. You're seeing in the Bible what you want to see, not what is really there.
...are the standard even though it is clear from the context that he must be contradicting the men who wrote the document who really ought to be credited with knowing what they are saying. Why should they be credited with inerrancy, or even accuracy and truth?
Naa, Percy knows better. On one reading he knows better than all of them. What is it that you're saying that I've read only once. The Bible? If so, then when we discuss specific passages I generally end up reading them multiple times, sometimes in different translations. Concerning the Chicago Statement, it takes no time at all to review their evidence when they've presented none. Message 42:
In answering the rest of your post I want to begin by responding to your last statement since it repeats your original error: Responding once wasn't enough? You have to repeat your response?
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning. Sure, the beginning of the 20th century. Which is a restatement of your mistaken equation of Bible inerrancy with a particular theological movement called Fundamentalism,... History is pretty much in agreement about this.
...which I hope I cleared up in my first answer to you. And which I corrected.
Biblical inerrancy is standard doctrine that goes back to the beginning according to the Chicago Statement. Yes, Article XVI, which is completely absent of evidence. St. Augustine was pretty close to the beginning, much closer than us, anyway, and he didn't think it inerrant.
It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism. I never said it was. I've merely repeated what history says, that Biblical inerrancy was simply one component of the fundamentalist movement. It came into being at the same time as the fundamentalist movement. That doesn't make it synonymous with fundamentalism. You are rebutting a silly claim, twice now, that you made up yourself.
You could say that it of course belongs to "fundamentalist" or traditional Bible-believing Christianity which is what that movement aimed to spell out in opposition to modernism and liberalism in the 19th century,... Hey, you got something right.
...but that too goes back to the beginning. And now you dive right back into error. There is no support for this claim.
I do hope this is now clear to you. You many errors are very clear.
True science is a gift from God. Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights. He gives it for the sake of the whole nation and He gives it because of our former Christian identity, and the first western scientists were serious Christians. Well, congratulations on knowing the mind of God. Narcissistic much? Since God could have blessed right-minded Bible believers like yourself with these insights as easily as atheists, why give these insights to unbelieving atheists? I'm asking you rather than anyone else because you know the mind of God so well.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada. Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity. Uh huh, well I was answering GDR's statement that we should appreciate science for what it has given us to improve our lives, and of course objecting that only the true sciences have given us anything to improve our lives, that the ToE and OE give us zip in that department. And of course I am happy to go on and affirm that they haven't even given us true knowledge of any sort, it's all a big shuck. Independent of your silly assertions, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity.
As for your comments on Augustine as usual you are tiresome in your amazing ability to get everything wrong. You give me too much credit. I can't hold a candle to you.
Of course we are "rewarded according to our works." Scripture says that. It does not say we are SAVED by our works, but over and over exactly the opposite and Augustine affirms that too, which became important in Luther's theology of salvation by grace. No, I'm afraid you are wrong. St. Augustine wanted things both ways. In Chapter 18 of On Grace and Free Will he criticizes those who believe that "faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works," then goes on to argue that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.
St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations.... Indeed he has. He contributed some extremely important stuff to our current theology. BUT he also WAS all over the place on some subjects,... So you keep saying but never supporting. You just toss out this random accusation without justification (something you do so often to so many) in order to question his credibility. You're the only one I've seen question the credibility of St. Augustine's science related observations, and you haven't provided an ounce of justification.
ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point. You listened to discussions and presentations making this point, but supported by what? Did they, like you, just make the point and move on? Or did they provide support for their point? If the latter then what did they say?
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,... Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves. You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations. God's inspired revelation is not subject to scientific method. Nor any method of validation, apparently. You just believe what you believe, then you build a complex structure of rationalizations around it.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture. That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten). The statement on Biblical Inerrancy DECLARES it against all objections. People can declare anything they like. Declaring something never made anything true.
We are not subjecting it to scientific proof, we declare it based on its internal witness to being the Word of God, and all the statements in that document follow this pattern of validation. Nobody expects YOU to accept that, but that is what it is saying to us believers. You really might try a little harder to understand what people you disagree with are actually arguing instead of imposing your own opinions on it. How is declaring something true equivalent to "stands against all objections" (again, that's from the title of your thread)? Somebody objects, and you stand against that objection by declaring yourself right and them wrong. That's not "stands against all objections." That's just obstinacy, obdurateness and irrationality. In other threads you've argued that your faith is based on evidence, but in this thread you're arguing that declaring what you believe is sufficient to rise over all objections. You have to make up your mind. I'm all for people accepting spiritual teachings on faith without evidence, but if faith requires evidence then you need to stop arguing that the fact that you've declared something true is enough.
Percy writes: GDR writes:
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.Faith writes:
But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind. Not according to my theology. It wouldn't be in my mind unless I knew it was shared with evangelicals in general. So you're claiming you're right because you claim that people who aren't here share your views? Pardon my skepticism. When evangelicals start chiming in that they agree with you then I'll believe you.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I. So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good? The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly. Let the record show that the person supposedly blessed with divine grace praises the death penalty, while the spiritual but religiously bereft person thinks the death penalty bad.
Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges. Now you're blessing stoning without any due process?
They didn't have guns so they couldn't do an execution by firing squad. They didn't have our modern means of putting people to death in an electric chair or by other supposedly painless means. I doubt they could have constructed an effective guillotine in those days. The method of murder, even murder supposedly justified by a legal process, is not important. What's important is that it is murder.
What would you have had them do? Uh...not murder people?
And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it. It is most enlightening to discover that the most religious are also the most in favor of killing people.
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all. That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote: Golly gosh, you think I'm overlooking that? Pretty much, though I don't think you're overlooking it so much as ignoring it.
No I am disagreeing with it. I don't know if they were imposing their love of Aristotle and Ptolemy on the scriptures or just misreading them, but there is nothing in the actual scripture itself that supports geocentrism. I did check out the verses referred to that supposedly support that idea and they don't. Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo doesn't reference any specific verses - what verses did you look at?
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information. That is readily apparent. Not to Dr. A who accused me of thinking I was defending the Bible when I was really defending Morris. It really would help if you'd consider the context before you answer. If it's so apparent to you funny it isn't to Dr. A. Anyway, my observations ARE original and the way you've dealt with them in past discussions shows an amazing inability to follow the argument on that subject as well as everything else. You've never been able to support your "original observations." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aussie Member Posts: 275 From: FL USA Joined: |
I don't say the KJV is inerrant, it's a translation, translations aren't inerrant. I thought you wanted to know what translation I use. Hi Faith,
All we have are translations of translations of copies of copies of copies...there is literally nothing else! What version of the Scripture that we actually have is certifiably inerrant? "...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The translations are all we have. If some spooky "original" that we don't have is inerrant, so what? I don't say the KJV is inerrant, it's a translation, translations aren't inerrant.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024