Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, for one thing it isn't self evidently true. For another, time can not both flow from the perspective of one within it, and be static from the perspective of one outside it. Thats the dilemma I'm asking for clarity on from those of you who assert it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNo one here asserted that. To the contrary, Rational Gaze stated, "He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI know what inerrancy means. To believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" is not synonymous with belief that the Bible is without error. I repeat, there are people on this very forum who believe that scripture is given by inspiration of God who do not consider themselves inerrantists.More or less correct.
You'll find plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who will say that they do not believe that scripture is inspired, and the definition of inerrancy isn't hammered into stone either.
More or less correct. I'm not really sure why you're repeating back to me what I've been telling you, but at least something seems to be getting through.
However, I'm sure there's a number of inerrantists out there who also believe the creation narrative is literally true (though that's probably not so common)
I've already replied to this. "True scholarship" (whatever that is), does, in fact, often begin with a number of accepted premises.So you've said. I replied with, "I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated."If you don't believe me, we can put it to a survey to see if other people see you as a genetic fallacist. I don't believe that this is just my observation of you. Perhaps if you see how other people see you, you'll come to rethink your position on the subject. Also, as previously stated, "true scholarship" (whatever that is) does in fact start with a number of established premises.Incorrect. As I've already quoted from Sailhamer, "Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."So you say. Sailhamer, an actual eminent Old Testament scholar says that it can be understood in a way that does not undercut our current scientific understanding.As I previously stated, the Genesis narrative is not man-centered. It's God centered. I do agree that the author/s of Genesis likely had no idea what the universe consisted of or had little idea about how it functioned.
Most of this reply you wrote was you either doubling down on what you had already stated, and I had already replied to, or it was you repeating back to me my argument to you (which was a bit unnecessary). If you have something new to add to the conversation except more "nuh-uh" let me know, otherwise, like most conversations with you, this is quickly getting monotonous.Last edited by Tassman; 11-15-2017, 04:52 AM.
Comment
-
Adrift has you pegged, Tassman. You're a textbook genetic fallacist. Interesting that you're willing to put far more effort into trying to discredit a view based on who holds it rather than addressing it itself.
How about doing both for once? Address the actual view itself and who holds it. Bet you won't....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
-
I knew you couldn't! Thanks for proving my point.
Sailhammer's point rests on the meaning of the Hebrew, something which you very obviously want to avoid discussing, because you have no idea.
Tassman, the intellectual Emperor with no clothes....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postthe fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories with Jesus as a mythical figure
just after the section break.
...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostThe bolded appears to be a direct, unattributed quote from here: http://mythikismos.gr/?cat=4
just after the section break.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNice find. Sad, but not wholly unpredictable. Why not just cite Carrier directly?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostHe may have figured out that we're going to instantly dismiss Carrier because he's not credible (because, well, he's not).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBecause I'm no scholar, I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
98 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
389 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
678 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment