|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Hebrews 11 is the word of God just as Genesis 22 is. For you to argue this way at this point just makes the whole discussion worthless Not an unexpected statement. But of course not an argument that carries any weight here when the subject matter in question is the Bible's inerrancy? As I've already stated, I don't have any problems with Hebrews 11 or its inspirational nature. But inspiration does not prevent human beings from making errors. Being after God's own heart did not stop David from sleeping with Bathsheba and it did not keep men from injecting their own thoughts and superstitions into the text. And yes we can find those things there. If you want to maintain otherwise, then maybe demonstrating that ought to be part of your presentation.
What a waste of time. I agree that continuing your present line of argument is likely a waste of your time. You aren't going to be able to demonstrate inerrancy simply by insisting on it. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
What you post is all after the fact reconstruction in which issues of fact that are clearly contrary are dismissed.
This is a red herring because Genesis 22 clearly STATES that Isaac was Abraham's only son I don't care what Genesis 22 states. We both know that Isaac was not Abraham's only son in anything like the same sense that Jesus was God's only begotten son.
No Nukes had various objections to this but since it is clearly stated in the passage, at the very least it foreshadows the provision of the ram, and the ram of course foreshadows the later provision of the sacrifice of the Messiah. Not 'of course'. Every time you editorialize that means you aren't sticking with the text. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
but it's clearly implicit in Genesis 22. NoNukes challenged this but on the basis that God could easily have provided another child to Abraham, which is a pretty far-fetched idea. I had meant to comment on this particular statement because appropriately enough it made me laugh. Abraham thinking there might be another child is a pretty far fetched possibility? Given what Abraham had already gone through with Isaac (remember why he as named that) and Ishamael? I just don't see it your way. And far fetched compared with resurrecting Isaac after Abraham sacrificed him? I suppose the result of comparing miracles is in the eye of the beholder, but I think I would personally be more astonished at Isaac coming back to life than I would be an old man of any age siring a child. Abraham ended up living to be 175 right? And then there is the convoluted substitution scheme where some combination of the ram and Isaac represents Jesus depending on what part of the prophecy you want to work.
since the point is to find SIMILARITIES between the stories, and there was no raising to life in the story of Jephthah's daughter Well, that's a perfect example of what I'd call confirmation bias in action. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The correspondence of similar elements is "confirmation bias? Sigh. Confirmation bias would be accepting the similar elements while rejecting as unimportant all dissimilar elements. Obviously. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You won't accept it as a type because it has "dissimilar elements?" I did not say that. However I am suspicious of a process which operates only by considering similarities and dismissing differences. In this case, some of the similarities appear forced. Further, I am particularly suspicious of a prophecy which is picked out after the fact.
What on earth are you asking for, an absolute perfect duplicate of the sacrifice of Christ in 1900 BC? Amusing.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Perhaps it's a lost cause but I would like to run the content of Message 1502 by you all again, because I do think it contains actual factual evidence for the claim that the Bible is inspired by God, and isn't just me preaching something. I appreciate that you gathered yourself together to make another attempt at this. Kudos. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
phthah promising god that "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me ... " and not whosoever ... Seriously, AZ. Wouldn't this promise of necessity present an unacceptably high probability of sacrificing a family member or friend? It's not as though "whatsovever" was going to be the dining room table. We're talking about an ambulatory "whatsoever".
Can anyone show that it was or was not common/uncommon in them days for one's favorite dog or lamb or gerbil or elephant to be first out the door to greet the returning master? Just being "common" is not enough. First of all, I don't think sacrificing a dog was going to be acceptable under any circumstances. Secondly, unless it was extremely uncommon that a human would exit the door, I'd suggest that Jephthah is completely responsible for knowing that "whatsoever" might turn out to be "someone". Obviously I cannot disprove "mere" gross recklessness. But given that Jephthah went through with the sacrifice, I'm having a hard time distinguishing recklessness from intent or finding any motivation to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that Jephthah was prepared to sacrifice a human. A lamb coming through the door instead would have been a total bailout. Yeah, his daughter was unexpected. I suppose he was superstitious enough to believe that wouldn't happen.
The disturbing thing is that the girl was roasted and no one, especially not this god, did a damn thing to stop it. I'm not the least bit bothered by God not interfering. This evil crap is all on Jephthah. Nobody told him to kill anyone. How many people would put one of their own children on the spit to save themselves? Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: Seriously, AZ. Wouldn't this promise of necessity present an unacceptably high probability of sacrificing a family member or friend? AZPaul3 writes: That is not the point, is it. Yes, It is exactly the point. The difference between saying "whatsoever" and "whosoever" is pretty close to naught. Jephthah might just as well had said "whoever and whatever". The point is that the first half of your post is pretty much without a point. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
t "smells" of some type of sacrifice. Not sure though. Sounds instead like a cremation with some accompanying ceremony. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Sorry I meant priests of Judah. But it still isn't another nation, since both were under the covenant of Jehovah. That's complete nonsense. Judah and Israel were completely separate states; separate kingdoms. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Whatever you think of the passages in question, one thing is very very clear and that is that your version of the relevant history bears absolutely NO resemblance to ANY of the Bible translations, The further forward you go in Bible history from Genesis, the more sources of history there are other than the Bible. The Bible mentions a number of foreign kingdoms and leaders. In many cases, there is lots of evidence for a) things that are not described in the Bible and b) things that are extremely difficult to reconcile with the Bible. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Biblical Christians often point out how various disasters are God's judgments on us. You will not find any such thing in other religions. This is a mark of superiority? Because most of the time I hear fundy televangelists make these proclamations their rantings strike me as asinine. I'll note that when they do that stuff at least they generally have the decency not to tell us that God told them that. It used to be that primitive people thought one of their gods caused lightning and thunder. How is that different from or inferior to some idiot blaming Katrina on liberals? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo writes: On the contrary, practically every religion attributes disasters to the judgement of the gods. That's one of the main reasons religion exists. You are going to have to prove that, Seriously, Faith. Your argument seems to be that only Christians are superstitious enough to be taken seriously. Surely you are aware that people attributed storms, volcanoes, and other natural disasters to fake gods. Why would you insist on proof of these. What do you suppose was the purpose of those pagan sacrifices and ceremonies if not to appease and ask for favors from their gods? http://www.smspromotions.org/mesopotamian-religion.html
quote: Here is a list of ancient storm godshttp://weathersleuth.com/WxDeities.html Volcano godsOH MY VOLCANO!!!: Volcano Gods Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Let's get back to my original point. It's certainly best that you to try something else, because your current line of argument is ridiculous. You are just saying whatever you wish is true without actually checking to see if it is rational, let alone true.
The petty little religions that are the work of demons are just imitations and paltry ones at that; they have no narrative, they have no history This is of course nonsense. I certainly have no problem accepting that all of those religions are just superstitions, but they have plenty of history, and many of their proponents (were they still around) would be quick to inform you that compared to them, Christianity is the johnny come lately that has to piggy back onto Judaism in order to have some extensive history.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Christianity is unique in that God found us---we did not have to go seeking Him So you don't buy the tie in with the Old Testament that says that God made us and that Jesus was part of God's plan from at least Genesis? Or the Trinitarian idea that Jesus and Yahweh are one? Just what are you actually saying? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024