nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 307:
Line 307: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 11:21, May 30, 2007
, 11:21, May 30, 2007→Alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible: List has no credibility
::[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html]
::[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html]
::Some of these are not as good as others but there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that are shown here. Please give me your opinion on them. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:42, 30 May 2007
::Some of these are not as good as others but there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that are shown here. Please give me your opinion on them. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:42, 30 May 2007
:::There are a lot of ''alleged'' errors and inconsistencies shown there. I've seen these lists many times before, and the main problem is that they are looking ''for'' inconsistencies rather than objectively looking to see if they really are inconsistencies.
:::Also, what might at first appear to be a contradiction or error might in fact have an explanation. The onus is on the person claiming a contradiction or error to demonstrate that it is one, not on someone else to prove that it's not. To put it another way, there might be several ways to explain an alleged contradiction or error. The mere fact that it ''can'' be explained means that one ''cannot'' claim that it is a contradiction or error, even if nobody knows for sure which explanation is correct.
:::Another problem is that, despite these lists often being directed against "literalists", they argue from an overly-literalistic reading of the Bible. In other words, they are being literalists in arguing against literalists.
:::Anyway, to get to the point...
:::The first one ''assumes'' that a supernatural, all-powerful, God is not able to interact in a physical way with the physical world He created. There is no argument offered as to why this would be so.
:::The second part of that one is a case of begging the question. He argues against the biblical record by assuming and citing the opposing viewpoint!
:::The second one (regarding night and day) is illogical. He asserts that night and day is not possible without the sun, whereas what really distinguishes night and day is ''light'', and Genesis records that ''light'' had already been created. The second part, about light from the stars (although he doesn't explicitly mention them), is the first one that is at all reasonable, yet even it has been answered by creationists.
:::The third one claims that plants began to grow before there was sunlight. Wow! So what's the problem? First, there was already light, even if the sun wasn't at that stage the source of the light. Second, they existed for about 24 hours without ''sun''light. Does he think that plants can't survive for 24 hours without sunlight?
:::There's the first three passages (about five "errors") answered, which should be enough to show that this list has no credibility. I don't intend to waste my time refuting more.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)