// Required code

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

    This is a commentary thread for the discussion/debate between Tyrel and Paprika on whether the Bible claims itself to be inerrant. The participants may not post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate, but anybody else may discuss the debate here.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      This is nuts:
      Opening statements: 1000 words each.
      Rebuttals: 500 words each.
      Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 300 words each.
      Closing statements: 400 words each.

      Comment


      • #4
        Slap, you are not allowed to post here
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
          This is nuts:
          Opening statements: 1000 words each.
          Rebuttals: 500 words each.
          Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 300 words each.
          Closing statements: 400 words each.
          Not your debate. Its theirs...
          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
            Not your debate. Its theirs...
            "It's" their debate. And this is our commentary thread.

            You're free to disagree with me. Of course, you're also free to disagree with Tyrel, who has likewise noted the issue in his opening. The format stinks, and they should agree to a change before the real action begins in the rebuttals, which should, by rights, allow longer word counts than the openings in order to both answer their correspondent's statements and to expand on their own positions.

            As ever, Jesse

            Comment


            • #7
              Good job on the opening by Tyrel. He did a good job of exposing the idea that something can't be taught if there isn't an explicit verse using our favoured word. That idea leads to the ridiculous argument that Jesus was silent on homosexuality (He wasn't) and even if He were, we couldn't know His position.

              Perhaps Paprika will surprise me.
              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                It seems doubtful that the author of proverbs 30:6 intended it to be added to God's word.

                On a side note, I've been watching a few debates recently and I find it to be much more informative when the debaters are each given a period of time to directly question the other debater. I'm not sure how well that would work in written format, but perhaps something like the 1st rebuttals the first person asks a question, the second answers and asks their own question, and then back and forth for a set number of questions.
                "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                Comment


                • #9
                  Debates are more effective when each party has to argue both sides of a question. That better allows one to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments and objections for both positions.
                  Last edited by robrecht; 02-24-2014, 07:22 AM.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                    On a side note, I've been watching a few debates recently and I find it to be much more informative when the debaters are each given a period of time to directly question the other debater. I'm not sure how well that would work in written format, but perhaps something like the 1st rebuttals the first person asks a question, the second answers and asks their own question, and then back and forth for a set number of questions.
                    I like this idea. If nothing else, the participants can flesh out their views beyond the narrow focus of the debate.


                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Before we return to θεόπνευστος, I must point out an essential hermeneutical principle. If more than one valid interpretation is allowed by a text (by the grammar, the diction, the context, etc.), it is quite all right to single one out and say that it is a valid interpretation. But to say that the text establishes one of these interpretations without using additional data (whether it be another Scripture, lexical data from other texts, studies on a certain grammatical construction and so on) to disconfirm other valid interpretations or confirm the preferred interpretation is to beg the question.
                    Well said.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This sort of thing doesn't lend itself to this style of debate, but I like what the editor of the Five Views on Inerrancy book that just came out did; he chose three hotly debated biblical passages and had all five participants account for how these passages are accounted for within their paradigm.

                      (Incidentally, Michael Bird is absolutely hilarious in the book. I can't believe somebody seriously used a sentence like "Peter Enns' views on Scripture and inerrancy have courted more controversy than Kim Kardashian's attending a Jihadists-for-Jesus fundraiser" in a Five Views book.)
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm not the moderator in the section since the debate moved, but since I did start it, I was the person of contact whom they informed about changing the word limits for the debate. They mutually agreed on:

                        Rebuttals: 1000 words each.
                        Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 600 words each (from 300)
                        Closing statements: remains at 400 words each.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          I'm not the moderator in the section since the debate moved, but since I did start it, I was the person of contact whom they informed about changing the word limits for the debate. They mutually agreed on:

                          Rebuttals: 1000 words each.
                          Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 600 words each (from 300)
                          Closing statements: remains at 400 words each.
                          Got a similar message

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            First off: Most courteous debate, ever.

                            Second:
                            1 Corinthians 7:10-12 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

                            Paprika appears to be arguing that this passage intends to draw a distinction between the words of God and the words of Paul. That is not the case. Paul is drawing a distinction between the words of "the Lord" [i.e. Jesus] and Paul's own words, with the point being that the two sources should be considered on par with respect to authority. For Paul to place his words on par with the words of Jesus would be blasphemy, were not his words the very words of God in this case.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              First off: Most courteous debate, ever.

                              Second:
                              1 Corinthians 7:10-12 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

                              Paprika appears to be arguing that this passage intends to draw a distinction between the words of God and the words of Paul. That is not the case. Paul is drawing a distinction between the words of "the Lord" [i.e. Jesus] and Paul's own words, with the point being that the two sources should be considered on par with respect to authority. For Paul to place his words on par with the words of Jesus would be blasphemy, were not his words the very words of God in this case.
                              The bolded seems an unwarranted extrapolation, and you've as much as shown that in the following statement with your accurate assessment of blasphemy. More importantly, you'd need to show why Paul would bother saying "I, not the Lord" unless he didn't consider his words to be the very words of God. It makes much more sense to think that Paul is offering his own addition without any claim to equal authority.

                              Indeed, it's very clear in context that Paul is very careful in delineating his authority, and he does so with humility. Chapter 7 verse 6 has him stating " This I say by way of concession, not of command" with him going on to say that he wishes all were like him, he recognizes that every person has their own gift(s). Most translations have verse 12 as "I and not the Lord", while the NIRV goes so far as to say "It is from me, not a direct command from the Lord."
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X