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
See more
See less

Another thread

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I knew you were going to nitpick that sentence.



    I mean, plenty of evangelicals accept biological evolution just fine (I'm as good an example as any I suppose). Accommodationism, by its nature, doesn't restrict any view on the subject. Just from listening to his podcast, I can tell you that Heiser has expressed a general lack of interest in evolution from a theological perspective, believes that Darwinian evolution exhibits known issues by scientists in the field, but accepts the general concept of evolution, and believes that Young-Earthers (which he is not) would be best served by taking it seriously.
    As an aside even several of the authors of The Fundamentals (from which "fundamentalism" got its name) were either open to or outright accepted evolution including James Orr, R. A. Torrey, E.Y. Mullins, Benjamin Warfield (who also played a pivotal role in the formulation of the concept of inerrancy) and even George Frederick Wright who would waffle back and forth but even in his "anti" periods was focusing on materialistic evolution and seemingly still open to theistic evolution.
    Last edited by rogue06; 10-07-2019, 05:25 PM.

    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      As an aside even several of the authors of The Fundamentals (from which "fundamentalism" got its name) were either open to or outright accepted evolution including James Orr, R. A. Torrey, E.Y. Mullins, Benjamin Warfield (who also played a pivotal role in the concept of inerrancy) and even George Frederick Wright who would waffle back and forth but even in his "anti" periods was focusing on materialistic evolution and seemingly still open to theistic evolution.
      Arguably it was easier to hold to such a position before the advances in genetics of the past 50 years have dealt concordism serious blows, though Joshua Swamidass's latest attempt to reconcile a literal A&E with current theory has garnered serious attention even from nonreligious scholars. (But I apologize for derailing.)
      "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


      • #33
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        Arguably it was easier to hold to such a position before the advances in genetics of the past 50 years have dealt concordism serious blows, though Joshua Swamidass's latest attempt to reconcile a literal A&E with current theory has garnered serious attention even from nonreligious scholars. (But I apologize for derailing.)
        Huh. Swamidass is someone that W.L. Craig has been championing a bit lately. Haven't read anything by him myself though.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          No one, not Smith, not Parker, not Heiser believe that later post-exile Jews read this passage as pertaining to distinct deities (outside of possibly the redactors who ignored it).
          A slight clarification to this, but by distinct deities I'm referring specifically to El distinguished from Yahweh. Scholars, including Heiser accept that the passage has in mind other divine beings (sons of the Most High). So Heiser and Smith would both agree that there are lesser "gods" within El/Yahweh's divine council. What they disagree on is that "El" and "Yahweh" were intended to be conceived of as distinct figures in Psalm and Deuteronomy.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            Arguably it was easier to hold to such a position before the advances in genetics of the past 50 years have dealt concordism serious blows, though Joshua Swamidass's latest attempt to reconcile a literal A&E with current theory has garnered serious attention even from nonreligious scholars. (But I apologize for derailing.)
            A possible solution for this problem might be found in realizing that there appears to be a profound difference between what science calls human and what the Bible refers to human ("Biblical man"). Something I brought up previously such as here.

            But you're right this is starting to become a derail.

            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              A possible solution for this problem might be found in realizing that there appears to be a profound difference between what science calls human and what the Bible refers to human ("Biblical man"). Something I brought up previously such as here.

              But you're right this is starting to become a derail.
              Huh, I shared Kidner's view with seer in another/similar thread. Interesting.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                Arguably it was easier to hold to such a position before the advances in genetics of the past 50 years have dealt concordism serious blows, though Joshua Swamidass's latest attempt to reconcile a literal A&E with current theory has garnered serious attention even from nonreligious scholars. (But I apologize for derailing.)
                It's not a actual derail until someone mentions bacon.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  It's not a actual derail until someone mentions bacon.
                  Like you just did?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                    Please feel free to expand on this. I'm not familiar with this alternative, or how it differs from Wellhausen.
                    The Supplementary Hypothesis is that there was a "base" form of the Pentateuch, which over time was adjusted via editing until it reached its final form.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X