|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
Neither verse is talking about a stationary planet. Having reading problems, Ray? If you're going to be shown the direct text of the Bible, and then say "no, it doesn't say that," you've proven yourself completely unsuitable for any meaningful dialogue. If, indeed, your need to proclaim Biblical inerrancy extends to denying what the Bible literally says, what the hell is the point? What's the point in being a Biblical inerrantist if you're just going to pretend like it says whatever you want it to say?
Yes, they do. No, they don't. From your own links:
quote: If they're defecating it, they're not "raising it up", now are they? So, you're saying that creationists can't tell the difference between vomiting and defecation? That, literally, they can't distinguish between an anus and a mouth? Your links amount to nothing more than "oh, it's close enough, don't bother us." Sure, it's close enough for a human book. We would expect mistakes in a human book. In a divine book? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, like my dad says. I would expect God, of all people, to be able to make sure the Hebrew bible authors knew a rabbit's asshole from a hole in the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ray writes: Yes, they do. Rabbits do not chew cud but practice what is known as refection. Refection which is the eating of specific pellets from their anus that are swallowed whole and NOT chewed. The AiG is in error by falsely stating:
AiG writes: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material”UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. This is incorrect. First feces is not cud and second they do not chew this material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
First feces is not cud and second they do not chew this material. But other than that, it's completely inerrant! Cuz of God! See?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object
Your entire post is built on the assumption that the Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth. Negative. The Bible REPORTS that a person who lived in the 15th century BC believed that the sun revolves around the Earth. Since Joshua grew up in Egypt this makes sense. That is completely besides the point. To say that the sun stood still in the sky or that the shadow on the sundial of Ahaz moved back 10 degrees {even worse} is to report a phenomena involving the stopping or reversing of the Earth's rotation about its axis and this reported phenomena has the results I listed in the previous post. And that was just a small sampling of the effects that would occur. It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Ray M writes: The Bible has reported a fact: persons living in said time period thought the sun revolves around the Earth. A yet another fact. The Bible has reported a fact: persons living in said time period believed that the divine was embodied by a patriarchal being with a bronze-age moral development, war lord orientation and a mindset very similar to other surrounding cultures. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Q Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days) Posts: 12 From: Fort Knox, KY USA Joined: |
sidelined writes: To say that the sun stood still in the sky or that the shadow on the sundial of Ahaz moved back 10 degrees {even worse} is to report a phenomena involving the stopping or reversing of the Earth's rotation about its axis and this reported phenomena has the results I listed in the previous post. And that was just a small sampling of the effects that would occur. Not really trying to play Devils Advocate here ( Hi, I'm the new guy in town lol ) BUT... IF we are talking about the Christian God, who exists outside of time space and matter and is ( as it says ) all powerful...then you have to look at it from the point of view that if God created the Laws, God can make them do anything, react anyway, behave different for a time. I think a good amount of people subscribe to the "anything can happen" or "anything is possible" way of thinking in the world, there for I think that at times, one must put them selves in the shoes of others and see it from that point. Again, talking about the Christian God... anything is possible. Just a thought
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Q Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days) Posts: 12 From: Fort Knox, KY USA Joined: |
back to the original topic:
DeclinetoState writes: 1. If the Christian god (as defined in footnote [2]) exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true. 3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable. C. The Christian god does not exist. I forget the mans name, I just read about him and this way of thought (I know he was a member of the Church) and this was a way of thinking that was accepted for quit sometime BUT...It is a flawed way of thinking. Example: 1) If I turn on a light switch, and a light comes on I have electricity2) If lights come on I have electricity from the power company 3) Electricity comes from the power company 4) lightning is electricity 5) lightning comes from the power company I know its not the BEST example but I just wanted to point out that that circular reasoning doesn't work here in this topic Also one cannot blame God for mans Sins anymore than I can blame the manufacturer of my truck when it breaks down because I failed to take care of what was "perfect" when made. Remember that ( if you believe the Bible ) Adam brought sin into the world, not God. Just my 2 cents
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Welcome to the board.
Some things about your example logic statement. First, the conlusion is valid based off of the premises. One of the premises is wrong though (and I think you know which one). Second, it's not an example of circular reasoning. An example of circular reasoning is the bible is true because the bible says its true . Or, using something to affirm itself. An apple is red because it is red. Water is blue because its blue. Oh, one final thing. I believe it's Eve who brought sin into the world--she ate the apple first, right? Gonna play devil's advocate, at least know the devil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Q Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days) Posts: 12 From: Fort Knox, KY USA Joined: |
your right on the circular reasoning ( and I think you knew I knew that... err.. yeah lol )
as for eve eating the apple first you are absolutely correct. but I guess it depends on your Faith too:
quote: so I guess its how you define it, but yes eve ate first But God told Adam not eve that he would pay the price ( and he brought Original Sin in to the world from his act, not hers )*I know the devil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Q
It still remains that the rest of the world did not witness such a singularly impressive phenomena and duly record its occurrence. As it stands the Christian God does not even manage to be outside of time space and matter since he frequently reeks havoc in this sort of way which means deliberately manipulating these properties that ,as you mention, he is supposed to be outside of.Since the question asked pertained to factual errors we can safely assume ,in my humble view, that we are talking about the world we interact with normally and not capriciously changed as seen fit by this immoral excuse for a God. Welcome to the goldmine Q. Please enjoy your stay here. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Q
Again, talking about the Christian God... anything is possible. Really? Care to explain what it means for anything to be possible for God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Q Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days) Posts: 12 From: Fort Knox, KY USA Joined: |
was pointing out that if ones thinking of God being All-Powerful then anything is possible. Thats all it ment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
Please cite some scriptures...no, just one scripture that is false in the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let's begin with Genesis 1.
The earth has NEVER been covered in water.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. We can of course move on from there. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
Prove it. Prove to me that the earth has NEVER been covered in water. You can't do it can ya. Just saying that the earth has never been covered isn't good enough. You know it isn't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024