Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,623 Year: 4,880/9,624 Month: 228/427 Week: 38/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 547 of 566 (598999)
01-04-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by bluescat48
01-04-2011 11:52 AM


Re: other scriptures
bluescat48 writes:
That is the point, there is none. Only man's interpretation of the stories.
what jar said is true. there is indeed archaeological and historical evidence associated with some of the stories in the bible. for instance, we know from external sources that the assyrian invasions referenced in isaiah 7 actually happened, and that israel was, in fact, destroyed by the second one.
the archaeological and historical records do not necessarily back up the bible's prophecies as 100% true, of course. even the bible's own history records do not do that -- simply compare 2 kings 15+16 to isaiah 7 to see that. there is also an image upthread of a stele left by shalmanessar iii, depicting someone described in the bible -- put as part of an event that seems rather intentionally left out.
generally speaking, the evidence gets stronger towards the end of the old testament period.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2011 11:52 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2011 6:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 548 of 566 (599001)
01-04-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 4:30 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
His posts are uncessesarily lengthy and they repeat material already covered
this is because your replies are frequently answered by the thing you're replying to. repeating the refutation is necessary when you repeat the refuted claim.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 4:30 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 552 of 566 (599007)
01-04-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 4:52 PM


Re: misrepresentation
you're going to have to try harder, dawn, considering that i quoted almost your entire post, as i have in nearly every reply to you. if you feel i have left something important out -- besides, you know, the stuff i've already addressed a thousand times -- feel free to point it out.
my claims of misrepresentation were not baseless. they included context and clarification. yours are pedantry.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 4:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 554 of 566 (599009)
01-04-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 4:41 PM


Re: other scriptures
Dawn Bertot writes:
Your position also assumes it has accurately taken care of anything we believe or accept as valid,[sic] to make the abover[sic] determination,[sic] it[sic] has not.
has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
You have assumed incorrectly that Matthew has misrepresented Isa[sic]'s words. You make this assumption on the basis of the plain and simple reading of the text.
look up "assumption" again, please.
You then disregard the entire text which makes it clear these are not Isa[sic]'s words to begin with[sic]
read isaiah again, please.
You further disregard inspiration as irrelevant, which is clearly a part of the text[sic]
read matthew again, please.
it[sic] would follow then that matthew[sic] was not misrepresenting Isa[sic]'s words and because inspiration is involved only inspiration could make known what Gods[sic] exact meaning in the words were.
quote:
arachnophilia writes:
please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write.
You have falsely limited God to a then and now interpretation[sic]
i've correctly limited the text to what it says, instead of what dawn imagines.
At bare minimum your claim that matt[sic] misrepresents Isa[sic] is false, because they are not his words to begin with and that MY[sic] SIMPLE[sic] FRIEND[sic] IS[sic] WHAT[sic] THE[sic] TEXT[sic] INDICATES[sic] AND[sic] SAYS[sic] DIRECTLY[sic]
quote:
arachnophilia writes:
please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write.
Arch[sic], Isa[sic], is it from man or God?
quote:
arachnophilia writes:
irrelevant
here[sic] is but a small example of how your MISUNDERSTANDING[sic] OF[sic] SCRIPTURE[sic] demonstrates that there is no "confirmation bias" on my part.
look up "confirmation bias" again, please.
you[sic] simply cant go by the rules you set up[sic]
quote:
you are misrepresenting my position. my position is not that we must read and believe the text, but simply that we must read it.
P.S. Arch[sic] Isa[sic], from God or man?
quote:
arachnophilia writes:
irrelevant

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 4:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 557 of 566 (599015)
01-04-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:15 PM


Re: misrepresentation
now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 559 of 566 (599017)
01-04-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:21 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairification
its evasion and not going by your own rules
again, Message 524, the post that grants the title to this whole sub-thread, i wrote:
quote:
my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it. they two do not go hand in hand, as i keep trying to explain to you. i do not know why you cannot grasp this concept. the accuracy of the source is irrelevant to concerns about how someone represents it. that includes me, my points do not have to be correct for your misrepresentation of them to be incorrect. at this point, i am forced to believe that you are doing this on purpose; that you are intentionally intellectually dishonest.
you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 561 of 566 (599020)
01-04-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:24 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthew
matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:
quote:
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,
  1. why "speaking" the testimony in the specific instances of being brought before tribunals (and potential martyrdom) is the same thing as authoring a gospel
  2. why you think matthew the disciple wrote this book
  3. why you think even a direct claim of inspiration that actually says what you want it to would mean the author actually is inspired
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 562 of 566 (599022)
01-04-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:29 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rules
which you have consistently misrepresented, regardless of the fact that i keep restating the clarification between reading the words and believing every claim indiscriminately.
Are the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they are
completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not matthew misrepresents isaiah.
now should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I can
you've got to be kidding me. i've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2011 5:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 565 of 566 (599088)
01-04-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by bluescat48
01-04-2011 6:50 PM


Re: other scriptures
bluescat writes:
Just because there is some evidence that the person, place or thing occurred, it doesn't necessarily make the entire story true, which is the lack of evidence I was speaking of.
of course. i was just attempting to clarify that idea a bit with some added detail. not that this will help dawn. we can't get past "claims" vs "is", nevermind the subtle difference between embellished history, historically set fiction, academic history, and real events.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2011 6:50 PM bluescat48 has seen this message but 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