Summations Only

quote:

---

The source of the knowledge has nothing to do with whether the writing was inspired or not.

---

Faith, as usual you have trouble understanding the views that you are opposing. Nobody is arguing about whether Luke was inspired or not. We are arguing about the nature of inspiration (assuming it is present) given the text of Luke 1:1-3

quote:

---

I've already said whatever I have to say on the subject of the nature of inspiration, concluding that I don't think we can really know, so I'll just stay out of it if that's your focus

---

So your idea that Inspiration means that Jesus is the author is just an opinion that you won't support.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, there is nothing different about the first verses of Luke as I also said.

---

If course, to you doctrine always dictates to the Bible. That's necessary to maintain the illusion of inerrancy.But, as I said, if you are going to take the view that a plain reading of the Bible should be the default, why claim that a plain reading of the introduction to Luke is "idiosyncratic"? That really does suggest that they are different in some way that suggests a less literal approach.

quote:

---

It shouldn't make any difference what the source of knowledge is whether the writing is inspired or not OR how it was inspired.

---

But you're the one insisting on a view of inspiration that is not found in the Bible, and one that does not sit comfortably with Luke. Why bother if it doesn't matter ?

quote:

---

What is the important implications for doctrine in stating that flying insects only have four legs instead of the six legs that we can see them having?

---

*I* want to know the doctrinal implications of the counts of people in Numbers.

I suspect that you "know" in much the same way that you "know" that the texts underlying the KJV are better than the older texts used by more modern translations.By your own admission you could not accept the fact that the Biblical text was uncertain, so you prefer to believe the false certainty of the KJV-only crowd.However, belief in a falsehood - however strong that belief - does not qualify as genuine knowledge.

No Faith claims of Biblical prophecy have NOT been "adequately defended" here. More like successfully refuted.And quite frankly you're giving the impression that when you say that you're not interested in defending something it's because you can't.

There's no need to try to make it sound true, because it is the truth.But feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. Show me these allegedly "adequate defences". Bearing in mind that what you are defending is Biblical prophecy as evidence of Biblical inspiration - and you have to come up with some really good evidence for THAT.

Faith I understand that you get frustrated when your illusions are dismantled and shown to be false. But what else can you expect in a debate site ? We're not here to just accept whatever you say. Rational people DON'T accept poor arguments or false evidence just because not doing so will hurt your feelings.Your problem is that reality refuses to be the way that you want it to be. But why get upset about it ?Don't hate the truth Faith. Don't condemn those who tell the truth as "stupid" or irrational. Don't try to set yourself up as God, dictating to everyone what they must believe with bullying and slander and lies.And if you can manage that, then maybe you might even be a Christian one day.

Faith, I note that your list of links includes the usual attempt to present Ezekiel's failed prophecy against Tyre as a success. The fact that Tyre is still there is an ironclad refutation of any claim that it would be destroyed and never rebuilt !Really, falsehoods and excuses are not evidence.

Well, of course it was just a bluff to try and shut down discussion. You don't have anything better. That's why you have to try to bully people into unquestioningly believing you.

Unfortunately Faith, you'd remember the explanations as convincing even if they were stupid lies. Neither your memory, nor your judgement are at all reliable.And let us not forget that what I actually asked for were proper references to discussions HERE, to support your assertion. A message ID or even a thread name is all it would take. But no, you had to try to cut off discussion rather than answer that.

Do you have to keep attacking people for daring to tell the truth ? Do you have to keep putting forward unfounded opinions as facts ? If you invite criticism - and you do - it is a but much for you to complain about getting it.

I guess that you mean that Faith is an extreme relativist, who defines "rationality" as accepting her "truth" and "stupidity" as rejecting it.

The problem is those like Faith who prefer to insist that reality conf0rms to their beliefs rather than making an effort to check that her beliefs conform to reality.

Much of the Bible is NOT "witness statements". Some of it is myth, some of it legend, some of it is fiction. All of it is partisan, much of it is credulous. None of it stands comparison with even the better ancient histories.And that is why the Bible is not good evidence.

quote:

---

None of it is myth or legend or fiction, none

---

Denying the truth won't make it go away. If you'd ever read the Bible the myth and the legend are obvious. No rational person could deny it.