Summations Only

I'm claiming my interpretation is true. How does that make me "infallible?" Everybody claims their view is the true one. So do you. Ever noticed how flatly assertive your one-liners are? Sounds "infallible" to me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible is all about evidence because it's history, the miracles in particular being given as evidence of the reality and character of God. Other religions just teach you principles, they aren't interested in proving anything about their claims though they may describe all kinds of supernatural phenomena. In my experience you aren't asked to believe them, just practice their principles.

I also wasn't addressing authorship.

herebedragons writes: Well then, I suppose you are just as much a "heretic" as you accuse theistic evolutionists as being.

Evolution seriously undermines the authority of Scripture and makes a mockery of the concept of Original Sin. Hence, evolution nullifies man's need for a Redeemer - namely, Christ.
So, in my opinion, any professing Christian who accepts evolution easily qualifies as a heretic.

dwise1 writes: I did study Greek, Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament. For two semesters. We used the Bruce Metzger New Testament. For each and every passage in the New Testament, all the various variations from the many source manuscripts were presented. And they showed your traditional interpretations to be a lie.

You're so gullible. I'm sure experts in the Greek Scriptures - from say, the Greek Orthodox Church - would laugh at the error-ridden rubbish you were taught.

Coyote writes: Dredge writes: But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do. There is evidence for one "starting point" but not for the other. In fact, the evidence flatly contradicts a young earth.

The starting point of evolution is a primordial cell that reproduced ... billions of years ago. What evidence is there evidence for that? I suspect it is merely an assumption.

herebedragons writes: I put "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" in quotation marks because I don't agree that is really a valid description of our overall observation of the fossil record. Nor do I think that observations of "sudden appearance" or "stasis" in the fossil record are all that surprising.

So, what are your qualifications in paleontology and how many years have you spent studying real fossils?

dwise1 writes: Dredge writes: I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187. Then why did you try to claim to have worked with the original?

I don't recall "try(ing) to claim to have worked with the original". Refresh my memory.

Read my page, Moon Dust.

I must decline your offer to read your article, Moon Dust, as I fear it will render me totally and permanently insane. As Tangle once pointed out, my mental state is already officially rated as RF ("real fruitcake"), so indulging the material on your website could push me over the edge into a bottomless pit of unspeakable madness and horror.

Do not be fooled.

How do know what's in the fossil record, for example? Do you have a Ph.d. in paleontology and have you spent several decades studying real fossils and the entire fossil record? Probably not, so you accept what a relatively tiny number of experts tell you is there. Have you verified for yourself that their conclusions are correct? I will assume not. You accept what they say, because, like you, paleontologists are Darwinists (I would imagine 99.99999% of them are, anyway), and they tell you want you want to hear.
In other words, you preach to creationists to verify what they are told, but you don't apply the same standard to what Darwinists tell you. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

herebedragons writes: Most of the book of Genesis is obviously stories that were passed down orally for generations and generations. They are likely based on real events but then, over time, they developed into what has been recorded in Genesis. Just because they are not historically accurate doesn't mean they are allegory or even that they are false. They are stories that have a lesson, a lesson about God, humans and relationships. Just because the stories are not absolutely, literally, historically true doesn't mean they are absolutely false. That is a false dichotomy (unless the whole of the issue is historical accuracy - then they are either historically true or historically false). But I don't believe that is the central issue, nor what literalists insist on.

You must have read a different book of Genesis to the one I've read. The one I've read is written in a style that makes it obvious that most of it is real, literal history.

How did you come to the conclusion that the contents of Genesis are stories "obviously" passed down orally? How do you know Genesis isn't based on earlier written accounts - ie, pre-Bible? I suspect your reasoning is at least partly based on the evo'myth that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

Do you really expect to convince people of the truth by forcing them to accept untruth?

How would I go about "forcing" anyone to believe what I believe, exactly?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Oops. I've just read your post. I take your point.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I also wasn't addressing authorship.

I was. It looks as if you weren't addressing anything, just writing a randomly chosen message with no connection to mine.

I wrote:

quote:

---

Which has nothing to do with the question of authorship.
Of course you've admitted it's understandable by far fewer than all. Well under half.

---

To which you replied:

quote:

---

Gosh, maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the question of authority because I wasn't addressing the question of authority at that point. Golly gosh. And again you are arguing the numbers, as if majority determined truth, while I am not.

---

To what antecedent does "it" refer? Where did arguing with numbers cvome from? Did you have some reason for replying to my message with a message that has no connection to mine (according to you)?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I'm claiming my interpretation is true. How does that make me "infallible?"

Because you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong or engage in any meaningful discussion of why you ink your interpretation is true. You have based your interpretation solely on your reading of the Bible, without considering any facts from the real world or anyone else's interpretation of the Bible.

I can't speak for others, but I wrote:

quote:

---

Personally, I doubt God dictated the bible but I don't claim any certainty; because such opinions are unsupportable.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The Bible is all about evidence because it's history,

Some is history, some isn't.

Other religions just teach you principles,

Really,? What research have performed to support this claim? What other religions' holy books have you studied? Zero?

they aren't interested in proving anything about their claims though they may describe all kinds of supernatural phenomena

I see. when the Bible describes all sorts of supernatural phenomena, it's strong evidence for the reality and nature of your God. When other religions do the same, it's meaningless.

In my experience you aren't asked to believe them, just practice their principles.

Exactly what experience do you have?

Because you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong or engage in any meaningful discussion of why you ink your interpretation is true. You have based your interpretation solely on your reading of the Bible, without considering any facts from the real world or anyone else's interpretation of the Bible.

Oh good grief. This is simply untrue. I listen to Bible exegetes preaching on the Bible all the time, for the last thirty years or more. There are thousands of preachers on the internet to listen to. And I've read hundreds of books by Bible preachers over that same period of time. I would never trust my own personal reading of the Bible. I know a lot about the textual critics and the whole miserable mess of modern attacks on the Bible. You just made up that accusation out of thin air. I'm probably a lot more educated in all that than most Christians, but I also don't know any Christians who rely only on their own reading of the Bible to form their judgments.

OK, you'e considered other's interpretations of the Bible. But not reality.

Could your interpretation be wrong?