Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 330:
Line 330: − +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 14:52, April 12, 2007
, 14:52, April 12, 2007no edit summary
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::{{remove personal remark|Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself.}} Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.