Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flaws in the Scriptures
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 137 of 152 (74387)
12-19-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by doctrbill
12-19-2003 10:49 PM


Thank you for your candid words. My post was intended as a "if the shoe fits " kind of thing. After reading what you said then my post does not apply to you.
And yes of course I have an ax to grind !!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by doctrbill, posted 12-19-2003 10:49 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 138 of 152 (74389)
12-19-2003 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by sidelined
12-19-2003 11:15 PM


Yes I wrote that to you - this is not in dispute.
What you conveniently omit is the resaon why I wrote that.
Don't you remember that it was you who first sat in anonymous land and branded a man with a Ph.D. to be a bullshitter. You should be ashamed.
You never said anything else, like attack the content of his teaching or views.
I called you on it and you are more concernred with your bruised ego than with the fact that you slandered a man with a Ph.D. to be a bullshitter.
None of Dr.Scott's worst critics have ever done what you did.
For the Record : Dr. Scott says the professors that taught him and graduated him to get his Ph.D. were all atheists. He calls them "men of renown....men who had more integrity in the tip of their little finger than all of the christians he has ever met...."
You got what you deserved for initiating astronomical cowardice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by sidelined, posted 12-19-2003 11:15 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by sidelined, posted 12-21-2003 2:29 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 139 of 152 (74447)
12-20-2003 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ConsequentAtheist
12-19-2003 10:18 PM


Re: Copying Errors Does Not Deny Biblical Inerrency
I am not afraid to admit that I do not know the answer nor do I know what you are even asking.
Are you going to tell us ? And will you do it in plain english ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-19-2003 10:18 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-22-2003 6:35 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 140 of 152 (74510)
12-21-2003 1:43 AM


God is responsible for preserving his Word, interestingly the preserved copy rested within both the believers, and the catholic church. It does appear though that the catholic church changed the wording of the new testament except for the book of revelation, perhaps heeding the warning in the book of revelations not to change the wording for this particluar book, however, the believers didn't feel it was right to change any of the wording of the other books, and died for their faith preserving the Word of God that conflicted with the changed wording of the catholic church. It is interesting that God chose a Catholic believer to restore the believers texts, the recieved texts, however, he used the Catholic Church copy of revelation, which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to the apostle John. It is interesting that the bible is a mix of the believers preserving the gospel, epistles, and the catholic church preserving the testimony of Jesus Christ fearing the warning to the changing the wording of this particular book.
P.S. We all know it was the advent of the printing press, that God used Britian to print the word of God, causing the Catholic Church to provide their laypeople with the douay rheim, etc...though one needs only to accept Jesus Christ, thus we have Catholic believers, and protestant believers, though feel that the authorized kjv is the only bible version that stands out, as the preserved words of God for this generation, etc...Jesus did say heaven and earth will pass away, but his words will never pass away, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-21-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by docpotato, posted 12-21-2003 11:17 PM johnfolton has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 141 of 152 (74513)
12-21-2003 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Cold Foreign Object
12-19-2003 11:55 PM


What you conveniently omit is the resaon why I wrote that.
Convenience is omitting the reason I consider Dr. Gene Scott to be a phony prick[A position that has not changed.]Here is a quote from your post#136 in Some Evidence Against Evolution.
Logidemic is the language that cancer researchers use between themselves. Pandemic is the language that they use to explain their research to doctors, and Practidemic is the language that the doctors use to explain it to their patients.
You got pissed off at me when I called you on the the fact that the words logidemic and practidemic do not exist.Here is my quote.
"Willowtree I will bet you money that this word is an invention of his plain and simple. No doubt he used it in some context that allowed him to impress others. Like the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit."
Well if you can give me independant verification of these words being real then I will apologize. However,I have checked out the follwing websites.www.medicaldictionary.com ,webmd.com ,merck.com ,cancerweb,the american medical association.Logidemic and Practidemic do not exist. If you can find it other than in the nebulous mind of the good doctor I would appreciate it.Pandemic is indeed a word that descibes an epidemic that affects a wide geographical area.It is not the language that doctors use to explain it to their patients.
PH.D no doubt means piled higher and deeper in this instance. I have sent an e mail to the president of the alumni association of Stanford University and I have let them understand the supoosed qualifications of this Gene Scott and we will see what level of genius this man is.
Now on to this
You never said anything else, like attack the content of his teaching or views.
I called you on it and you are more concernred with your bruised ego than with the fact that you slandered a man with a Ph.D. to be a bullshitter.
I am married with 2 teenage daughters, you couldn't bruise my ego in a million life time old man.
If Dr Gene Scott would like to defend himself for using words that nobody else on the planet uses perhaps he should have learned that the purpose of language is to communicate not impress.
: Dr. Scott says the professors that taught him and graduated him to get his Ph.D. were all atheists. He calls them "men of renown....men who had more integrity in the tip of their little finger than all of the christians he has ever met...."
Is this supposed to make his musings have greater veracity?It does not matter whether a man is a Christian or an atheist muslim or buddhist PH.D or student the Evidence is what matters.
You accuse me of cowardice I accuse you of hero worship. IMO Gene Scott is a legend in his own mind.
------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-21-2003]
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-19-2003 11:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2003 10:30 PM sidelined has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 142 of 152 (74620)
12-21-2003 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by sidelined
12-21-2003 2:29 AM


I never got pissed off when you asked about "those " words.
I plainly told you where I heard them and the context of which they were used. I never knew the words were unknown and when Dr.Scott used them he immediately explained what they meant. The cancer researcher example was what he said as an example to explain there meaning. I honestly do not know the exact origin of the words. And by no means did I say Dr.Scott coined them, and I am not accusing you of saying that he did. Dr.Scott used those words in the context I already said.
It is just plain hateful and to use this minor controversy as a platform to arbitrarily brand a man with a Ph.D. to be a bullshitter.
You obviously detected that I respect Dr.Scott very much, seeing this you proceeded to say something that hurts. You have hero's whether you admit it or not. Everyone does. I bet your daughters are hero's to you whether you admit it or not.
Rhetorically speaking; how does the use of words that cannot be found on the internet make Dr.Scott a bullshitter ? Is it not logical to give a Ph.D. the benefit of any doubt ?
What Dr.Scott's worst critics cannot accept is how a man with a Ph.D. from Stanford could be a creationist/christian. The two just don't jive. He concluded that Jesus rose based upon the evidence. This is the only reason.
That alumni association that you mentioned -`Dr.Scott has graced the cover of their magazine. You will discover that he enjoys a wide spectrum of respect from every walk of life.
I ultimately would like you to`prove what you say he is making up, and it is just plain chicken shit to say what you said without providing a lick of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by sidelined, posted 12-21-2003 2:29 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 12-21-2003 11:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 146 by sidelined, posted 12-22-2003 7:45 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 149 by sfs, posted 12-22-2003 11:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 143 of 152 (74621)
12-21-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object
12-21-2003 10:30 PM


Now, Willowtree.....
I have a PhD, in organic chemistry, The Ohio State University, 1979. I can bullshit with the best of 'em if need be, and if you ever catch me speaking of politics, or economics, or medieval history, you can rest assured that it is probably bullshit I'm dispensing. Dr Scott can do exactly the same as I: when we get far from our area of expertise, we're not necessarily any more reliable than your barber. Especially if we make up words....
Dr. Ed Vinson, beloved by all as Coragyps

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2003 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 144 of 152 (74622)
12-21-2003 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by johnfolton
12-21-2003 1:43 AM


quote:
We all know it was the advent of the printing press, that God used Britian to print the word of God
Why did God wait so long???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by johnfolton, posted 12-21-2003 1:43 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2003 8:35 AM docpotato has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 145 of 152 (74647)
12-22-2003 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Cold Foreign Object
12-20-2003 3:04 PM


Re: Copying Errors Does Not Deny Biblical Inerrency
Having asked:
  • Does the urtext of Deuteronomy 32:8 stand closer to the many proto-Masoretic variants, or to some vorlage of the Septuagint, or to the Samaritan Torah? How do you know?
... I do not know the answer nor do I know what you are even asking.
Perhaps you should know more about the textual transmission of your Bible.
Are you going to tell us?
I'll leave that to Apostle for now.
And will you do it in plain english?
Just look up the words that you don't understand. You'll be better for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2003 3:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 146 of 152 (74650)
12-22-2003 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object
12-21-2003 10:30 PM


You obviously detected that I respect Dr.Scott very much, seeing this you proceeded to say something that hurts. You have hero's whether you admit it or not. Everyone does. I bet your daughters are hero's to you whether you admit it or not.
I do indeed have heroes but mine are the ones that admit to their humanity.Feynman,Asimov,Sagan,Owen,Lee,Eliot,Lightfoot,Etc.The greatest contribution of men such as these are that they illuminate the world but need not illuminate themselves.That is what makes them heroes.It is the reason I use the signature I do because it signifies being able to face reality unafraid and still be capable of the enjoyment of life.
This is in contrast to Gene Scott who does not post the importance of the belief in God on his webpage but the importance of himself.You need only pay your money to him and he will share with you what you can find out for yourself.These are the type of men who substitute charisma with volume of voice and rhetoric. There is nothing he teaches that you cannot learn on your own.His only
power is that which you give him.
Without people such as yourselves he has nothing to offer but opinion and you can stop anyone on any street in the world and get an opinion.Do you see images of the vastness of space or the beauty of nature or the subtlty and magnificence of Gods handiwork grace his webpage.No? What do you see? Gene Scott,his bio,his picture,his accomplishments.Wake up ,man, this is idolarity isn't it? The man is full of himself not God ,nor humility ,nor quiet works, just boisterous self interest.
The level of education does not an intelligent human make.
------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2003 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2003 8:20 PM sidelined has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 147 of 152 (74653)
12-22-2003 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by docpotato
12-21-2003 11:17 PM


I thought God doesn't answer the why question, but looking back at the heretics, the waldenses, we find they were not heretics at all, they were preserving the gospels, epistles, in spite of the Catholic inquisition, and the Catholic Church preserved the book of revelation, from my perspective the copies of the waldenses going back to the apostles were in need of being restored, this is why Erasumus recieved the texts from the believers, and restored these texts, to these believers, its called the textus receptus the restored texts, the majoritiy texts recieved even to today, the textus receptus is the texts that survived the inquisition. Interestingly Erasamus remained a catholic to his death, and its said the Erasamus is the egg that hatched Luther and the reformation, however, what I found interesting is that Gutenburg was used to develop the printing press, and as soon as he perfected the press they called in his loan and confiscated his printing press, for Gutenburg was starting to print the textus receptus in german, and for this cause they confiscated his printing press.
P.S. If it wasn't for England standing up to the monopoly of the catholic church, and God protecting England in the storm that took out the Spanish Armada, the Catholic douay rheim bible would still be in the closet, as is the Catholic Church was forced to allow their laypeople the Jerome bible in english or face losing these laypeople to the textus receptus written in English what we now call the authorized KJV. It is interesting the only errors in the translation were copy error of the printing press people not the translators, which were corrected, to give us the inerrant words of God for their generation and our generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by docpotato, posted 12-21-2003 11:17 PM docpotato has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 148 of 152 (74729)
12-22-2003 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by sidelined
12-22-2003 7:45 AM


There, you now have explained your basis for not liking Dr.Scott. Too bad you couldn't of done this in the beginning.
Even though this is off topic - what is the source and basis for your beliefs concerning God ?
If not, I will consider this exchange closed, unless we pick it up in another appropriate topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by sidelined, posted 12-22-2003 7:45 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by sidelined, posted 12-24-2003 11:52 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 149 of 152 (74767)
12-22-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object
12-21-2003 10:30 PM


quote:
Rhetorically speaking; how does the use of words that cannot be found on the internet make Dr.Scott a bullshitter ?
It doesn't.
quote:
Is it not logical to give a Ph.D. the benefit of any doubt ?
You don't know many people with PhDs, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-21-2003 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 150 of 152 (75003)
12-24-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2003 8:20 PM


WILLOWTREE
Even though this is off topic - what is the source and basis for your beliefs concerning God ?
I do not have beliefs concerning God as that would be admitting to a conclusion that I do not possess.In my life I have been exposed to many points of view concerning the nature of God and I find them to be unclear and confusing. I most especially cannot reconcile to a God that uses what amounts to magic in producing the universe and the interactions of all the various levels of forces we percieve. The idea of magic as an actual means of doing these things simply does not make sense to me.Unless someone out there can explain the way in which these forces can be manipulated and maintained then any notion of an entity doing so only blurs our view of reality.
Science is not a religion in my view as the point of it is to catalog
the ways in which human beings can fool themselves and others and take steps to correct these errors.One particularly telling feature is the fact that you do not allow any one person the luxury of being the arbitrer of truth.It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the knowledge we gain is based on the idea that it gives a good approximation of reality as we investigate further and further into deeper and deeper levels of the universe.
Of course we are delighted all the time by learning that,even though we know a lot about the structure of the main forces at work in the universe,the different manifestations of those forces and the complexities of the ways in which they can interact continually astounds us.
As an addendum I would like to state,concerning Dr. Scott, I do not dislike the man I dislike his position and his attitudes.
Have a good christmas WT and enjoy the time with those you call you own.
------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2003 8:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 152 (75165)
12-26-2003 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Zhimbo
12-19-2003 1:15 AM


Zhimbo
My reason for concluding that the original Scriptures were without error come from (besides my belief that the Scriptures are God's infallible word) the fact that errors do diminish as we encounter older and older writings.
To document this let me provide the following example. Earler on in this topic an individual posted some references as evidence of errors in the Scriptures. I concluded that it was a copyist error.
Then an individual with knowledge of the Hebrew texts provided information that showed in fact that his earlier Hebrew version contained enough extra information that made the two verses easily reconcilable. (post 60). This was consistent with my conclusion that there was simply a copying error.
I don't know if you are missing something. You seem to have a pretty clear understanding of the issues. Perhaps I am not explaining well enough. In any event I still have not seen an error that would lead me to the conclusion that the Bible is not God's word.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Zhimbo, posted 12-19-2003 1:15 AM Zhimbo 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