Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

If you have a response for Schraf, then respond to one of her posts, not mine. I am simply reminding you of Guidelines. If anyone wishes to continue showing how both Ross and Ham mislead, please do so.

---

quote:

---

Yes, actually you did claim that the scroll was proof that the Bible had not changed.

---

SINCE THE TIME OF THE SCROLL ITSELF. YOU OUGHT TO BE BANNED FROM THIS THREAD.

quote:

---

So I point ouu that it has nothing to do with the major changes that Biblical Scholars beleive have occurred in the book of Isaiah.

---

THERE HAVE BEEN NO MAJOR CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH AT ANY POINT BUT THE TOPIC WAS WHAT THE SCROLL SAYS ABOUT THE CONTINUITY BETWEEN IT AND OUR OWN ISAIAH TEXTS. What is called "scholarship" these days is a bunch of idiots sitting around making wild guesses based on their own subjective impressions. But all you "proof" hounds accept this as "scholarship." What a joke you all are.

quote:

---

As for your claim that I ma using sources you consider bogus I cannot think what you are referring to. Sources which allege that addiitons to Isaiah are only relevent to my point in so far as they describe those allegations. Even if you reject the allegatiosn you cannot deny the validity of using thsoe sources. Or is it the dating of the scroll you object to ? If so then what source do you consider valid and what date do they propose and on what basis ?

---

Blah blah blah blah blah. To quote one of your "colleagues" here.

quote:

---

As to your assertion of "misrepresentation" are you really claiming that when you said:

​

I'm talking about the common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries so that it is no longer the original, not any particular changes, just a general accusation. The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.

​

You actually did NOT mean to include the major changes that are actually alleged to have ocurred to the very book in question ?

---

Yes I certainly am claiming that, you self-righteous blithering idiot.

quote:

---

I suppose next you'll say that you did not actually mean the WHOLE Bible, just Isaiah. Because that is every bit as obvious.

---

AS I SAID, FINDING ONE TEXT THAT HAS THE SAME CONTENT AS TODAY'S BIBLES, FROM TWO HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST IS A VERY GOOD INDICATION THAT THE BLITHERING IDIOTS WHO WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER KEEP NATTERING ON ABOUT HOW THE BIBLE CONTENT HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS ARE AS WRONG AS THEY ARE STUPID.

quote:

---

Especially when we consider that some NT texts were probably not even written until later and no NT texts have been definitely found at Qumran.

---

"Probably" this "probably" that. This is the level of "modern scholarship." Oh how the standards of "proof" deteriorate when it's YOUR "proof" that's being forwarded.And the REASON there were no NT texts at Qumran is that the sect there dates from PRE-CHRISTIAN TIMES BY A HUNDRED YEARS OR MORE. Good grief!

quote:

---

But even then the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there have been changes in the Bible - variants of several books have been found there. Including Isaiah.

---

That's a crock. There are some extremely minor differences in the Isaiah text that have no effect on the meaning which is the same now as it was then.

quote:

---

Finally there is nothing wrong with accepting modern scholarship over ideas with nothing to recommend them but antiquity. Indeed it would be foolish for anyone who really wished to understand the Bible to neglect mainstream Bible scholarship.

---

Good grief. The god of Science seems to have made you all into braindead Philistines.

quote:

---

If you have a response for Schraf, then respond to one of her posts, not mine. I am simply reminding you of Guidelines.

---

Schraf is one of the stupidest people at this site, and I am responding to you because you insisted that her demand was relevant and it is you to whom I am responding.Please ban me.

I'll respond to Jazz if and when I bloody well feel like it. Go take a flying leap.

Faith, I never understood this need some folks have to be suspended. If you do not want to continue posting then quit posting. If, on the other hand, you are looking to be martyred somehow, keep looking. I for one refuse to play that childish game.If I ever get to the point of suspending someone, they won't go out as martyrs. It will be well after they make total asses of themselves.So, my advise is to stop the blather, debate in good faith, or quit.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Ahhh... I see you are leaning toward the total ass's way out of the forum.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-05-2005 05:12 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

LOL, translated: When it doesn't have me totally stumped. You have become more amusing than anything else. Keep it up!

by folks actually asking for support. SO if you cannot support your assertions then just explain to Schraf that it is just a matter of personal belief and faith, not something to be supported.If you would only begin some of your assertions with "I believe" instead of trying to show them as fact which needs to be considered then much of what you see as opposition will fade away.But as long as you insist that everyone, including other Christians, must accept the description of things found in the Bible as fact, things which CAN be verified such as the age of the earth, then you can expect to be asked to provide evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.As a Christian I ask that you stop unfounded attacks on others and try to address some of the reasonable requests made relating to your claims.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What else do you need? The statements are plain, simple, and unambiguous. They're simple enough statements; are they true or not? You claimed you could tell just from the statements, so get to it, already. Sure there is. You would just have to ask my sister, now wouldn't you? Or anybody else who was in the restaraunt on that day? Plenty of witness testimony is avaliable. Concocted? No, not at all. Some of the statements are exactly what happened. I told you that, already.And yes, it does constitute a valid test of your amazing mental powers. If you can't succeed in a simple controlled trial, how can you hope to apply this method to the complex, conflicting situation of the Bible? You have to walk before you can run. This is a report of a simple event in which at least 3 people participated. Tens of people here at EvC believe that at least some of my story is true and accurate. Beyond the veracity of my unquestioned honesty, there is the extra-Crashfrog history as related by the reciept I have from the restaurant. Hey, like I said, plenty of people at the Outback can tell you what happened that day, since they were there.

Ah, the best that Christian apologetics has to offer.

The topic seems to have had severe digressions in many directions, because of many members input.Shall we try to get the focus back on what is stated in the subtitle?Adminnemooseusps: I have a "OEC vs. YEC" type topic started at Terry's Talk Origins. Need to get back there to see what's happened.

Careful! I have yet to see a frog evolve into a prince. There is still hope, however!
BTW...why don't any frogs take a leap of faith now and then?

I'm at least the 3rd moderator stepping in here. Have two requests:

1. All future posts must be in some way related to the main topic of this thread.
   ​
2. If anyone would like to discuss Biblical validity further, please propose a new topic or take the discussion to one of the existing threads on this topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Ross has a relevant science degree and seems to require fewer miracles than YECs. His sort of OEC belief falls well short of theisic evolutionism.I don't know much about Ham specifically other than seeming to remember that is is one of the "you weren't there so what do you know" crowd.I find it interesting that the Trinity Broadcasting Network has two shows about creation. One is the YEC Carl Baugh's production in three good time slots. Ross has one show that plays at 4:30 in the morning. The conservatives at TBN seem to favor the YEC view.Ross is interesting and shows an astronomical argument against a 6000 yr world, but he still balks at faunal succession and requires a few 'stocking' miracles now and again. I don't remember his version of geology. Some of his biology seems stretched but he beats the YECers in science hands down.ABB

Ross at least does not make the same assumptions as the YECs. But I seriously disagree with his exclusionary picture of GOD and religion. For example, he has as a basic point of belief the concept that not only is GOD knowable but that some folk have the TRUTH while others are by definition, wrong.IMHO, such a belief system limits GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion