Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 7:20 AM
111 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Son of Man (6 members, 105 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,419 Year: 17,242/29,783 Month: 1,230/1,956 Week: 227/506 Day: 32/131 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 121 of 166 (842321)
10-29-2018 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
10-29-2018 3:59 AM


Re: The Fall
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


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 3:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 2:57 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 122 of 166 (842326)
10-29-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
10-29-2018 2:25 PM


Re: The Fall
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 10-29-2018 2:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 10-29-2018 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 123 of 166 (842335)
10-29-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
10-29-2018 2:57 PM


Re: The Fall
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 2:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14513
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 124 of 166 (842339)
10-29-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
10-29-2018 5:22 AM


Re: So when does Biblical Inerrancy stand up to the objections?
quote:

They just figure you don't understand anything about truth, and you don't.

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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 5:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 125 of 166 (842345)
10-29-2018 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
10-29-2018 5:11 AM


Re: Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
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:

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.


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

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6&ver...

Chapter 7 of Romans.

quote:

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


Chapter 8

quote:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please Gog

....

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 5:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 166 (842346)
10-29-2018 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
10-29-2018 5:11 AM


Re: Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
What does Romans 5:14 mean when it said death stopped reigning during Moses time?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 5:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 10-30-2018 3:13 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 127 of 166 (842388)
10-30-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by LamarkNewAge
10-29-2018 9:33 PM


Re: Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-29-2018 9:33 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-30-2018 10:38 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14513
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 128 of 166 (842396)
10-30-2018 5:55 PM


Biblical Inerrancy is a fraud
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 10-30-2018 6:42 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 129 of 166 (842398)
10-30-2018 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by PaulK
10-30-2018 5:55 PM


Re: Biblical Inerrancy is a fraud
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2018 5:55 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 130 of 166 (842404)
10-30-2018 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
10-30-2018 3:13 PM


Re: Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
quote:

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.

(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:

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.

Paul said it was defeated by people becoming Christian.

So death is another word for sin. It is semantic.

Death defeated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 10-30-2018 3:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-31-2018 12:16 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30079
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 131 of 166 (842416)
10-31-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by LamarkNewAge
10-30-2018 10:38 PM


Re: Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-30-2018 10:38 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2018 12:58 AM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 132 of 166 (842456)
11-01-2018 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
10-31-2018 12:16 PM


Making sense of every last word/sentence/paragraph of Paul is complicated.
This whole issue of "original sin" is absent in the entire Bible (Except for 4 Ezra or 2 Esdras)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...t-Sins-Of-The-Father

Faith, you said this:

quote:

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.

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

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-3/

Here is 3:31

(all scriptural quotes will be taken from the above site)

quote:

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Steve Mason's annotations, in Early Christian Reader, will be quoted throughout this post.

quote:

Mason
p.132

3:31 A natural question: if Jews and Gentiles are the same before God, what has become of the divine law...? For the moment Paul simply insists that he is not overthrowing the law, but he will not take up the matter until Romans 7.


Romans 4

quote:

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


Mason notes:

quote:

Mason
p.132

4:3 Gen15:6.MT “And because he put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit.” The LXX reads exactly as Paul. “Believe” is the verb corresponding to the noun “faith”. In Genesis, the point seems to be that Abraham trusts God's promise of descendants although he is old and childless, and so God considers him righteous. Paul, however, wants to make Abraham's “faith” something absolute, in contrast to “works”.


The LXX is the Septuagint

The Hebrew text behind the King James Old Testament is MT.

Romans 4:4-11

quote:

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


Mason notes:

quote:

4:11 Paul has considerably revamped the argument of Gal. 3:15-18, which drove a sharp wedge between the Abrahamic covenant (of faith alone) and the Mosaic covenant (of commandments/works). That argument overlooked the fact that circumcision (which Paul associates with law and works) was already commanded to Abraham (Gen 17:9-14); it did not originate with Moses. By contrast, Paul now distinguishes between Abraham's situation before and after the circumcision command: he is reckoned righteous in Genesis 15, but the circumcision command comes only in Genesis 17.

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:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.


Mason notes:

quote:

Mason p.133

Paul now rightly interprets the “seed” of Gen 22:18 as a collective singular (descendants) rather than as a singular reference to Christ as he did in Gal 3:16; see note to 4:11


Romans 4:19-24

quote:

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;


Mason's verse 24 note:

quote:

Mason
p.133

4:24 Having established at length the importance of faith for Abraham, Paul now fills the term with Christian content. Note his distinction between the ancient sense of the passage (“not for his sake alone”), which Paul concedes, and its application to Paul's day. Paul generally considers scripture to relate ultimately to his own time – the end of the age (see 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 10:6).


I will skip 4:25

Now Romans 5:1-9

quote:

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


Mason notes

quote:

Mason
p.133

5:9 Except for references to the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians (10:16; 11:25-27), Romans is the only letter in which Paul develops the idea of Jesus' death as a blood sacrifice, see 3:25. Perhaps this reflects Paul's Jewish audience


Romans 5:10-12

quote:

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

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:


Mason notes:

quote:

Mason
p.133

5:12 A ruptured sentence that has caused endless discussion among commentators. Paul's view so far has been the typically Jewish one that all are sinners because all sin (3:9-19). He says this here also (because all have sinned), but the point does not fit perfectly with the argument that he now wishes to make concerning the legacy of Adam's sin for humanity. This tension may be the cause of the ruptured sentence.


Romans 5:13-14

quote:

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.


Mason notes:

quote:

p. 133

5:14 That is, if people dies from Adam to Moses, as they did, even though their own sins were not counted (in the absence of any laws), they must have died because of Adam's sin. This passage would be used by the 5th-century teacher Augustine as the basis for his doctrine of original sin, which subsequently assumed an important place in Christian theology. The problem is that (a) Paul does not elsewhere develop such an idea, (b) his main view is that people are sinners because they themselves sin (see 3:9-19; 5:12), and (c) he is not out to prove anything new about Adam here. Rather, Paul assumes his readers knowledge of speculations about Adam (see 4 Ezra 1:21-27), which he uses as a basis for his claims about the universality of Christ's benefits (5:15-21), his main point.


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:

1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Mason says this about verse 14

quote:

p.134

6:14 The first hint that Paul will turn the death/life theme against the regime of the Mosaic law.


Chapter 7 is odd.

verse 1

quote:

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?


Mason notes

quote:

7:1 [know the law] Another indicator of the audience's Jewish background: they know Torah.

[lifetime] Paul now applies the death/life scheme to the fundamental question of Jewish law: all believers have died to the law (see Gal. 2:19-20).


verse 2

quote:

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.


Mason notes:

quote:

7:2 This analogy presents a logical problem: If the woman represents the believer, why does the husband (= the law?) die?

7:3-7:7

quote:

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


Mason notes:

quote:

7:7 Is the equation of law with sin a natural consequence of Paul's argument? A more natural question might be whether the law is obsolete, to which Paul would presumably answer yes. Why does Paul, then, raise the extreme prospect that the law might be sin – a view that neither he nor his readers (as far as we know) has suggested? Perhaps so he can dismiss it for its obvious absurdity, in a reductio ad absurdium.

7:8-9 shows us the complications of taking Paul's words literally

quote:

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


The "I" is interesting.

Mason notes:

quote:

7:9 A puzzling order, since Paul was born a Jew (Phil. 3:5). When was he alive before the commandment came? The order does fit, however, with his scheme of salvation history: Adam, Abraham (promise), Moses (law), Christ (faith). See Gal. 3:15-29; Rom. 5:13-14, 20. This correspondence suggests that Paul is talking about the history of salvation, using I as a symbol of humanity, not about his own life.

7:12-18

quote:

.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.


Here are a slew of Mason notes.

quote:

7:12 As in 3:31, Paul insists that he has nothing negative to say about the law per se.

7:13 Again, the negative consequences of the law were not the law's fault; sin used the law.

7:14 Paul assumes his readers agreement: We [Jews?] know that the law is spiritual. But compare his statements elsewhere, which seem indeed to connect the law with flesh and sin (Phil. 3:2-20; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3:1-5; Rom. 6:1-7:4; 8:1-8). It seems likely that the Roman Christians had heard of his remarks about Judaism and its code, which places him on the defensive.

7:18 Paul regularly appeals, as here, to a dichotomy, common in Greco-Roman antiquity, between the world of constantly decaying matter (including “flesh”) and the world of unchanging truth (“spirit”). This distinction was fundamental to Plato's thought.


Romans 8 is something else

verses 1-12

quote:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.


Mason notes:

quote:

8:3

could not do See Gal. 3:21. Paul effectively links the law with flesh and sin, even though he is careful not to blame the law itself. The law has now been supplanted by the coming of Christ.

….

8:8 Paul consistently associates observance of the law with the inferior, transient world of the flesh, as opposed to the enduring work of the Spirit; see Phil. 3:2-6, 19-20; Gal 3:3 …. see 6:1-6

….

8:12 Evidently, then, in spite of Paul's careful attempt to avoid criticizing the law, for him the law is finished. This is the view he expressed more directly in Gal. 3:23-25; 4:4-7, 21


the rest of chapter 8

quote:

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


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:

p.130

Other Jews could easily agree with what Paul says about the importance of sincerity. But his claim that circumcision is spiritual and not physical was a problem, since the Torah makes it clear that circumcision is “in the flesh of the foreskin” (see Gen. 17:11, 14).


Do you have any issues with Mason's notes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-31-2018 12:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:57 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17888
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 166 (842461)
11-01-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
10-23-2018 8:52 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
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:
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

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:

Not according to my theology.


But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind.

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:
Here's the actual condemnation of Galileo.
Note how it says "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture", and "the said opinion [...] can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture" and "it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held" and so on.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 8:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 11-02-2018 6:55 PM Percy has responded

    
Aussie
Member
Posts: 216
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 134 of 166 (842462)
11-01-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
10-27-2018 3:09 PM


Re: Discussing Bible contradictions to examine Bible Inerrancy
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 3:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:19 PM Aussie has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15606
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 135 of 166 (842463)
11-01-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
10-27-2018 3:09 PM


Re: Discussing Bible contradictions to examine Bible Inerrancy
Faith writes:

I don't say the KJV is inerrant, it's a translation, translations aren't inerrant.


The translations are all we have. If some spooky "original" that we don't have is inerrant, so what?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 3:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018