Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Inerrancy of the Bible
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 256 of 301 (178718)
01-19-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by CK
01-19-2005 6:14 PM


Charles Knight, He's a great bullshitter. I agree he is a good story teller. Think he missed his calling, he would of made a great lawyer. Though guess he is sort of defending himself against the IRS and winning.
This is all off topic, even though Kent to his credit is a KJV believer, believing were created in the image of God. Whats the truth is the issue, is the KJV the inspired Words of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by CK, posted 01-19-2005 6:14 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2005 8:57 PM johnfolton has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 257 of 301 (178720)
01-19-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by arachnophilia
01-19-2005 5:53 PM


Re: What does the KJV say?
i wasn't aware that the bible said a precise age of the earth. in fact, it doesn't seem too good on dates in general.
What I have learned here about the Bible is that it actually doesn't say anything at all. That is why I ask 36C about what it says. It turns out that actually reading it does no good at all. Each individual tells me that what I read isn't what it says and each one tells me that it says different things.
So I'm asking 36 this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2005 5:53 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 7:11 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 266 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2005 9:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 301 (178721)
01-19-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 5:14 PM


Almost...
No, not the same Greek scientists who thought it was round. They didn't come until later... But seeing how all Christians are defamed for the views of predecessors, you shouldn't have issue with this
"Belief in a flat Earth is found in humankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus."
Flat Earth - Wikipedia
The cultural contexts issue is not a cop-out, it's a legitimate statement regarding the misinterpretation of a few words by this group.
In regards to your stall numbering problems - go back to my post 206 or 207 and take note that the word "of" shows why there is no error there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 9:21 PM Incognito has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 259 of 301 (178723)
01-19-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NosyNed
01-19-2005 6:35 PM


Re: What does the KJV say?
Ned, Is not that something that the KJV in respect to the age of the earth could mean its quite old and the fossils young. Does that scare you? That the dating methods might actually agree with the scripture if one day is as a thousand years. kjv 2 peter 3:8
I think its best to leave the tangled web of all the problems in respect to the isotope dating out of this thread. Its really an off topic request your requesting, because we all know you Ned. We all know what you know, and know that you already know all you need to know in respect to the age of the earth (doubtful that anything the 36 christians would say would dissuade you). Including all the problems in respect to the age of the fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 6:35 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 7:43 PM johnfolton has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 260 of 301 (178725)
01-19-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by 36Christians
01-19-2005 12:53 PM


Re: KJV Translation Problems
Unfortunately your answer doesn't make sense given what was written.
And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying...
The Areopagus is both a small rocky hill, adjacent to the Acropolis, and a Council with certain judicial functions which met there.
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said...
I find it interesting that neither the Greek nor the Latin use Mars' hill. The scenerio described seems to mean the council as apposed to the hill itself.
Did the name Mars Hill apply to the council also? I see no evidence that it was called the council of Mars Hill.
Since neither the Greek nor the Latin use the term Mars' Hill, I find it odd that a group of presumably English scholars in 1611 would choose the Roman name for the Hill to describe the council.
Is verse 22 refering to the hill itself for the council. IMO, it is the council.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by 36Christians, posted 01-19-2005 12:53 PM 36Christians has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 261 of 301 (178726)
01-19-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Coragyps
01-19-2005 6:19 PM


Coragyps, I do hope you checked out this link, there is more to it than just the Bethlehem retrograde motion.
The bible says there shall be signs in the heavens. kjv Genesis 1:14
The Star of Bethlehem
A magus watching Jupiter that September saw two objects moving so close that they appeared to touch. This close approach of celestial bodies is sometimes called a 'conjunction'. Our Middle Eastern viewer saw Jupiter coming into a close conjunction with the star, Regulus. Regulus takes its name from the word root which yields our word 'regal.' The Babylonians called Regulus Sharu, which means 'king.' The Romans called Regulus Rex, which means 'king.' So to start things, at the beginning of the new Jewish year, the Planet of Kings met the Star of Kings. This conjunction may have indicated kingship in a forceful way.
In 3/2 BC, Jupiter's retrograde wandering would have called for our magus' full attention. After Jupiter and Regulus had their kingly encounter, Jupiter continued on its path through the star field. But then it entered The Star of Bethlehem. It "changed its mind" and headed back to Regulus for a second conjunction. After this second pass it reversed course again for yet a third rendezvous with Regulus, A TRIPLE CONJUNCTION. A triple pass like this is more rare. Over a period of months, our watching magus would have seen the Planet of Kings dance out a halo above the Star of Kings. A coronation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 6:19 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by CK, posted 01-19-2005 7:34 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 264 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 8:14 PM johnfolton has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 262 of 301 (178730)
01-19-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 7:30 PM


Re:
quote:
Since before the world was created, God predestinated the order of life and motions of the universe so that the event of Jesus' birth would take place with all of these signs pointing to His birth. What a marvelous God we have who so ordered creation so that the motions in the solar system would spell out the Messiah's birth.
hmmmm....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 7:30 PM johnfolton has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 263 of 301 (178731)
01-19-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 7:11 PM


Dating
Ned, Is not that something that the KJV in respect to the age of the earth could mean its quite old and the fossils young. Does that scare you? That the dating methods might actually agree with the scripture if one day is as a thousand years. kjv 2 peter 3:8
I think its best to leave the tangled web of all the problems in respect to the isotope dating out of this thread. Its really an off topic request your requesting, because we all know you Ned. We all know what you know, and know that you already know all you need to know in respect to the age of the earth (doubtful that anything the 36 christians would say would dissuade you). Including all the problems in respect to the age of the fossils.
Well, it is not actually off topic here if 36C thinks that the KJV establishes a wrong age for the earth. That would be an example of an error in it.
However, even when on topic, some things are so large that they should be handled in another thread. We already have some dating threads open.
Apparently you disagree with some of what is in those threads and make suggestions about what will and will not disuade me. You, however, don't have the intellectual guts to actually attempt to tackle those issues.
Unlike yourself I do happen to know a bit about those subjects. And, generally, I don't make pronouncements about things that I don't know very much about.
As for the fossile being young in old rock: we have had one person make himself look pretty foolish trying to support that idea.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2005 19:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 7:11 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 9:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 264 of 301 (178740)
01-19-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 7:30 PM


Re:
Yes, Tom, I'm aware of that. The triple conjunction hypothesis is in the Christmas planetarium show that I practiced giving last month.
How many completely distinct phenomena does that make that you've proposed, in this one thread, to be The Real Thing now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 7:30 PM johnfolton has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 265 of 301 (178747)
01-19-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 6:31 PM


Re:
Tom, if you think Kent is the ant`s pants, you`re just gonna love Ron Wyatt
Wyatt Archaeological Research
http://www.wyattarchaeology.com
Sorry, Chas, couldn`t help myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 6:31 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2005 9:11 PM Nighttrain has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 266 of 301 (178752)
01-19-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NosyNed
01-19-2005 6:35 PM


Re: What does the KJV say?
What I have learned here about the Bible is that it actually doesn't say anything at all.
oh, it certainly SAYS stuff. it says a lot of things. the problem is that they don't line up, either with history or with themselves. even the theological points are very often contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 6:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 267 of 301 (178753)
01-19-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Nighttrain
01-19-2005 8:57 PM


Re:
Tom, if you think Kent is the ant`s pants, you`re just gonna love Ron Wyatt
AGGH WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! MODERATORS!
AdminPhat writes:
We are so hopelessly off topic anyway! (Sigh) I for one am letting this one roll only because everyone is in a joking mood and not attacking each other at the moment. BTW, Arach...I don't know anything about Ron Wyatt, but I know that 36 Christians want us to focus on the KJV.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-20-2005 00:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2005 8:57 PM Nighttrain has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 268 of 301 (178754)
01-19-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by NosyNed
01-19-2005 7:43 PM


Ned,
Well, it is not actually off topic here if 36C thinks that the KJV establishes a wrong age for the earth. That would be an example of an error in it.
No its not an error with respect to the age of the earth. It simply says the earth was created in the beginning. It could of been 15 billion + or - years ago, or 6,000 years ago. What your saying is that the believer is in error, not scripture. In heaven believers will see all things clearly. 1 Co13:12
As for the fossile being young in old rock: we have had one person make himself look pretty foolish trying to support that idea.
I thought I did quite good as Craig(guess you disagree )(maybe a log in my eye but actually thought I did rather good),in the correlations thread, that anerobic bacteria have been found that actually are able to digest C14 (carbon) in cellose. I also brought to light that wood under 45,000 years of snow varves only dated 11,000 years.
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87
We got into all the fractionate mineral carbonates that could form easily from "anaerobic digestion" of all this cellose carbon and other carbons present in the varves, including C14 that when digested it would bubble upward to be reabsorbed as mineral fractionate carbonate easily affecting C14/C12 ratio.
Next time you clean your sewer lines see how easy these anerobic organic minerals come off a white plastic garbage can. The whole basis of the accuracy of the varves was that C14 and all carbon in the cellose organics cannot become unbound(thus the C14/C12 ratio is accurate), you now know this is not true.
You should realize varves can be laid down quite quickly. This particular thread was a can of worms. No one knew Lake Suitshu's topography, no core data of the water shed.
No one ever mentioned the role anaerobic digestion play in cellose digestion in respect to C14 carbon digestion and reabsorption of c14 as mineral fractionate carbonates affecting upper varves C14/C12 ratio's.
You can not just use a weak acid to clean these mineral carbonate organic stuff off, at least it didn't work for me when I tried to clean up the mess of unplugging a sewer line in my basement.
You really have no evidence the fossils are older than 11,000 years, you do realize this. It doesn't really matter, because its not an issue in respect to the inerrancy of the kjv, nor the topic of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 7:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 9:23 PM johnfolton has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 269 of 301 (178758)
01-19-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Incognito
01-19-2005 6:46 PM


The cultural contexts issue is not a cop-out, it's a legitimate statement regarding the misinterpretation of a few words by this group.
What evidence do you have of that particular cultural connotation beyond its necessity to explain these discrepancies? Such evidence would include other contemporaneous Hebrew writings that use the same terminology in an unambiguous situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Incognito, posted 01-19-2005 6:46 PM Incognito has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 270 of 301 (178759)
01-19-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by johnfolton
01-19-2005 9:13 PM


Interpretations in Error
What your saying is that the believer is in error, not scripture.
That is exactly the point that Galileo made and the majority of believers seems to understand. That we now know how some literal interrpretions of Genesis are in error doesn't seem to have been grasped by many.
All the gibberish there doesn't explain how with all the errors you make up that there are still strong correlations across independent methods.
Your suggestions are silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 9:13 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2005 10:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024