Summations Only

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. 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.

What you post is all after the fact reconstruction in which issues of fact that are clearly contrary are dismissed. 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. Not 'of course'. Every time you editorialize that means you aren't sticking with the text.

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. 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.

Sigh. Confirmation bias would be accepting the similar elements while rejecting as unimportant all dissimilar elements. Obviously.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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. Amusing.

I appreciate that you gathered yourself together to make another attempt at this. Kudos.

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". 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. 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?

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.

Sounds instead like a cremation with some accompanying ceremony.

That's complete nonsense. Judah and Israel were completely separate states; separate kingdoms.

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.

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.

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:

---

The cultures of Mesopotamia had a polytheistic belief system, which means that the people believed in multiple gods instead of just one. They also believed in demons created by the gods, which could be good or evil. The people of Mesopotamia worshiped these other worldly beings to keep the beings happy, because if one of these powerful beings was angered then the people of Mesopotamia would, in some way, be punished for that unhappiness. They believed that when something bad happened, whether a natural disaster or not, it was because the correlating god was angry at them, so they did their best to keep the gods happy.

---

Here is a list of ancient storm gods
http://weathersleuth.com/WxDeities.htmlVolcano gods
OH MY VOLCANO!!!: Volcano Gods

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. 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.

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.