nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + Line 109:
Line 113: + + + + + + +
Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 16:08, May 13, 2007
, 16:08, May 13, 2007Responses to Wikinterpreter and Bolly Ottihw
:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup>
:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup>
::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.
:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.
:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007
:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007
:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)