nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 259:
Line 259: + + + + + Line 265:
Line 270: + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 08:17, April 8, 2007
, 08:17, April 8, 2007→I do not understand this argument.: Expansion of my brief reply
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[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.
:::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.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)