nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 258:
Line 258: + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 13:01, April 9, 2007
, 13:01, April 9, 2007→What's this article trying to achieve?: Goodbye
:Yes, thank you, Petre. Paul's opinions are nice, and without them Paulism, er Christianity might never have gotten off the ground, but they are merely Paul's opinions. Phil, you need to do a bit more reading into the logos theory (among all the other reading you really should do).
:Yes, thank you, Petre. Paul's opinions are nice, and without them Paulism, er Christianity might never have gotten off the ground, but they are merely Paul's opinions. Phil, you need to do a bit more reading into the logos theory (among all the other reading you really should do).
:Phil, reread what Dpbsmith wrote, the problems to which he refered and perhaps you'll understand the point. Also, if English is the best you can do, pick a better source than the NIV. Of course, I have the advantage of being able to read Greek (the language of the NT), and as a linguist I know that no translation can capture precisely what was said in the other language (especially shades of meaning and double entendres), thus I am able to compare and contrast the sources and develop a fuller understanding of the text. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, reread what Dpbsmith wrote, the problems to which he refered and perhaps you'll understand the point. Also, if English is the best you can do, pick a better source than the NIV. Of course, I have the advantage of being able to read Greek (the language of the NT), and as a linguist I know that no translation can capture precisely what was said in the other language (especially shades of meaning and double entendres), thus I am able to compare and contrast the sources and develop a fuller understanding of the text. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
----
I'm not continuing this discussion any more, as it has strayed far from the original topic yet the original points have mostly not been addressed. I'll give a few examples so that that is not just an unsubstantiated assertion.
* I noted that there has been no discussion of what sorts of alleged contradictions should be listed. There has still been no such discussion.
* I asked why a police computer could not contain evidence of a burglary. There was no reply to that question.
* I said that the Bible said that Jesus was the Creator. I was asked to supply evidence that Jesus thought He was the Creator. I supplied evidence that the Bible referred to Jesus as the Creator. This was dismissed because it didn't show ''that Jesus thought that''. But that is not what I claimed. I was actually asked to provide evidence to something I didn't claim, only to have my answer dismissed because it didn't meet the straw-man.
The discussion has also diverted into whether the Old Testament and the New Testament agree, which again is nothing to do with the issue I raised. All this discussion is taking time to answer, and it's time that I'm not prepared to spend any longer when the issues that I raised are not being addressed but are instead being used to launch into new criticisms.
See you all on other talk pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
== Protected debate page? ==
== Protected debate page? ==