Difference between revisions of "Talk:Exotheology"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(→Edit comment: 'removed stupid uncited ref "the Bible to be inaccurate" ': That's a contradiction.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Sorry I took offense. He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science. You can reword the phrase. The bible is inaccurate to explain science. It just sounded like the Rev doesn't believe in the bible, which he does. Bloke? Are you from down under? My apologies. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT) | :Sorry I took offense. He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science. You can reword the phrase. The bible is inaccurate to explain science. It just sounded like the Rev doesn't believe in the bible, which he does. Bloke? Are you from down under? My apologies. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :: Yes, I'm from down under. "''He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science.''". That's a contradiction. If he's saying that it's inaccurate "in regards to science", then he's saying that it's ''inaccurate''! Saying that someone believes that the Bible is inaccurate doesn't mean that they think it gets every single thing wrong, or that he doesn't believe ''any'' of it; it just means that they believe it contains inaccuracies, so they don't believe ''those bits''. If he believes that it contains inaccuracies in the area of science, then it is perfectly correct to say that he believes it to be inaccurate. And therefore he ''doesn't'' believe some of what the Bible says. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:11, September 11, 2008
| ! | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Edit comment: 'removed stupid uncited ref "the Bible to be inaccurate" '
What was stupid about it? As for it being unreferenced, the reference at the end of that sentence has the bloke saying, "Fr Funes ... said ... that the Bible should not be held to account for its lack of scientific accuracy." If he says that it has a lack of scientific accuracy, he is saying that it is inaccurate (in areas that science says differently). That bit should be reinstated. Philip J. Rayment 17:22, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry I took offense. He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science. You can reword the phrase. The bible is inaccurate to explain science. It just sounded like the Rev doesn't believe in the bible, which he does. Bloke? Are you from down under? My apologies. --
jp 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I'm from down under. "He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science.". That's a contradiction. If he's saying that it's inaccurate "in regards to science", then he's saying that it's inaccurate! Saying that someone believes that the Bible is inaccurate doesn't mean that they think it gets every single thing wrong, or that he doesn't believe any of it; it just means that they believe it contains inaccuracies, so they don't believe those bits. If he believes that it contains inaccuracies in the area of science, then it is perfectly correct to say that he believes it to be inaccurate. And therefore he doesn't believe some of what the Bible says. Philip J. Rayment 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)