"The Gospel Plus Nothing and Nothing But the Gospel"
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
True, The Book should not be made some "ew, ah..oh - holy book!" idol.
Which is what many do, regardless of what overall school of thought in general, such might subscribe to.
At the same time, though, there is the issue of...
Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In the above, the Christ not only refers to That which "is written" as His Final Authority, but likely a copy of the Orginal Text.
And Scripture abounds with examples of The Scripture Itself having been their Final Authority.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Down the road a bit, when he repeats his pointing to The Scripture Itself as an evidence of his assertions, his hearers turn to The Scriptures for their Final Authority as to what was actually what...
17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Why would they turn to The Scripture as their Final Authority?
Because such had held to what The Scripture itself emphasized on this issue of Final Authority.
Thus, as described in the following; regarding the handling of someone like you...
Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
The Scripture's instruction on that is...
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Fact of the matter.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
RealityJerk
New member
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
That verse best exemplifies why, Jews won't become "Christians" / "Presbyterians"..etc.
When we compare the earliest Hebrew manuscripts (Tje DSS), to the masoretic text, considered the authoritative Hebrew text for rabbinic Judaism, we find that the earlier DSS manuscripts, agree more, have less variance, with the LXX (Septuagint / Greek translation of TeNaK ) and Aramaic targumim, than with the masoretic Hebrew text. The NT quotes the LXX or/and Hebrew manuscripts, that aren't part of the later masoretic Hebrew text, hence there are some so called "errors", that non-believing Jewish counter-missionaries, often quote to demonstrate how the NT "distorts" the Hebrew text, but the problem with that argument, is that, these Jewish apologists, assume that the NT writers and Jews in general in the first century, were using manuscripts identical to the masoretic Hebrew text they now have in their synagogues
, when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise.
Thus comes to my second point, and that is that, as believers in Messiah, we shouldn't be using only the masoretic, as our source for what we consider the Hebrew bible. We should at least adopt the readings found in the LXX and targumim, that concord with the NT. That's what the Holy Spirit has led me to believe.
RealityJerk
New member
"Thus comes to my second point" = Thus I come to my second point. Those pesky types..
It is now apparent. You called it far earlier! I'm tipping my hat towards you.
:e4e:
Ole RJ is "hell bent" on removing the "Easy Yoke" of matters... FO Sho! (For Sure)
"Thus comes to my second point" = Thus I come to my second point. Those pesky types..
Allow me to be BLUNT...
Do you believe Jesus Christ is GOD and Do you place all of your salvational FAITH in HIM... Alone?
"Thus comes to my second point" = Thus I come to my second point. Those pesky types..
And yet, The Spirit did not point out through Isaiah his audience's source was to be the Spirit.
Because He was not.
Rather, The Scripture He inspired those few men to write, was to be the source.
Thus, the Lord's quote of The Scripture Itself, to the Adversary (who was basing his false assertions on Scripture).
And what did The Spirit assert through Peter, as His witness through Peter was coming to an end?
The over riding witness of The Written Word...
2 Peter 1:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
I can do this all day...
Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
The Written Word is Final Authority.
Your kind can assert "the Spirit led" you all you want.
One need only look to The Book to know yours is nothing more than your kind's self-importance in your self-delusion, out of your having failed to study out how the Spirit leads - through - His - written - Word.
Isaiah 8:20's very point.
For as in his day, even so...now.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Rom. 5:8
RealityJerk
New member
The Messiah's notion of what constitutes scripture, is that of the Jewish people. The nation of Israel. That's Torah, the five books of Moses, the prophets and psalms / writings. That's what he and His 12 apostles had confidence in and considered scripture, when Messiah was here on earth. The Hebrew bible and later divine revelation, delivered to us by the 12 apostles, are in perfect concordance, and in good faith, we can safely assume, that they should become part of the Messianic canon / rule of scripture.
However, when it comes to the new covenant scriptures, there are letters, written by men who were not of the 12, that we can't safely assume, hold the same authority and weight, as those texts written by the 12 apostles. Of course, all of this is based on, the presupposition, that the texts generally recognized by Christendom, as authored by the 12 apostles, are actually written by them and not others. It's obvious, to the one who thinks and has an actual relationship with the God of Israel and His Son, that the Hebrew bible is the foundation, upon which the New Covenant scriptures rest.
The litmus test, for determining what should be considered New Covenant scripture, should not be based on what non-Torah observing, Anti-Semites determine, but rather on what the children of Israel, in Messiah determine, in light of Torah and the Spirit Of Messiah that dwells within them. The only written text, that the Messiah ever wrote Himself, were the two tablets he gave Moses at mount Sinai / Horeb, that's about it. As the children of Israel, God's kingdom elect, we are obligated to keep TORAH:
"To the law (Torah / תֹּרָה ) and to the testimony (Tehoodaw / תְּעוּדָה) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."*(Isa 8:20)
Rev_12:17* And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Yeshua The Messiah.
Rev_14:12* Here is the patience of the saints/tzadikim: here are they that keep the commandments of Alohim, and the faith of Yeshua.
Rev_22:14* Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The main trait, emblematic feature, of the believer in the last days, is that he keeps the Torah and the testimony of the Messiah. The faith of the Messiah. The apostle John / Yochanan tells us:
2Jn_1:6* And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
What did they hear from the beginning? Torah.
Mat 28:18* And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.*
Mat 28:19* Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:*
Mat 28:20* Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS, WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. "*
Messiah accompanies , tabernacles, communes, with His disciples, empowering and assisting them, in the carrying out the rescue operation / "great commission", till the end of this age. That doesn't imply he will not be with His disciples, after this fallen age, but the emphasis of this passage is on how Messiah will empower His elect to carry out their mission. He instructs them to make disciples (recruit, teach, train, mentor, discipline individuals, called and chosen to essentially comprise God's special operations forces..),teach them everything He taught them.
2Jn_1:6* And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Torah observance and bearing testimony, witness, that Yeshua is Messiah. That is THE WAY / HA'DERECH. That's what the apostles called their discipline. Their Messianic way of life. THE WAY. It's to be walked, in faith and obedience to God and His Son.
RealityJerk
New member
Yeshua's martydom, paid the ransom for all. Without that sacrifice, we would all perish, in spite of whatever effort we might make to keep God's commandments. Unlike you, I actually believe, Messiah's life blood, shed on the cross, is so valuable and powerful, that in the end, the devil doesn't take almost all of humanity to hell with him. You on the other hand, subscribe to the peculiar idea, that God wins the battle against evil, while losing almost all of His creation to it. If your version of the gospel is correct, then God loses and the devil wins. But that's not the case, because your faith is not the faith of Messiah or His disciples.
As pointed out earlier, in a previous post, there are consequences to sin. That's why almost all of humanity, with the exception of God's elect, experience the 1st death. Even though they will suffer in death, they will not perish, thanks to what Yeshua did for them on the cross. They will be judged according to their works, and given a place, in the next age/aeon, among the nations. These people will be governed, lead, by the elect. The elect reign with Messiah. In this age, what is taken place, is the restoration of Israel. God's elect royal and priestly nation, the administrative corps for humanity, within YHWH's Kingdom. The elect will be like the angels. Ministering spirits / messengers / angels.
As pointed out earlier, in a previous post, there are consequences to sin. That's why almost all of humanity, with the exception of God's elect, experience the 1st death. Even though they will suffer in death, they will not perish, thanks to what Yeshua did for them on the cross. They will be judged according to their works, and given a place, in the next age/aeon, among the nations. These people will be governed, lead, by the elect. The elect reign with Messiah. In this age, what is taken place, is the restoration of Israel. God's elect royal and priestly nation, the administrative corps for humanity, within YHWH's Kingdom. The elect will be like the angels. Ministering spirits / messengers / angels.
The apostle Paul was chosen by the risen Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Of which Peter of the 12 confirmed that the writings of Paul were on equal ground with the rest of scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
(15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Of which Peter of the 12 confirmed that the writings of Paul were on equal ground with the rest of scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
(15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
RealityJerk
New member
Tambora writes:
The apostle Paul was chosen by the risen Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Response:
He was "chosen" in the same way as the serpent was permitted in the garden. God placed two trees in the garden of Eden, one with fruit that leads to life, and the other with fruit that leads to death (Scripture is like that garden, that has both life bearing and poisonous fruit). You need the spirit or light, to decipher, what is life bearing fruit and what isn't. Sheol = Grave / Death or "Paul", is a false apostle, and a test for Israel:
Deu 13:1* If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,*
Deu 13:2* And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;*
Deu 13:3* Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.*
Deu 13:4* Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
The apostle Sheol is a test for Israel. If you follow His teachings, you will not be counted as Israel / God's elect. You might still avoid the second death, thanks to Messiah's precious life blood, but you will rise in the second resurrection, not the first one. You will be judged according to your works, with everybody else, in the white throne judgement.
"To the law (Torah / תֹּרָה ) and to the testimony (Tehoodaw / תְּעוּדָה) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."*(Isa 8:20)
As far as the second letter of Peter. Assuming it's actually authentic, and not a forgery, as many scholars believe it to be, it still doesn't give a blanket approval of Paul's teaching, much less declare his writings divinely inspired scripture. You're reading that into the text. What it does say is that, those who don't know Torah, mainly people like yourself, take his writings and destroy themselves.
Most people who identify as "Christian", will be rejected, due to lawlessness.
Mat 7:21* Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.*
Mat 7:22* Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?*
Mat 7:23* And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, lawless ones (anomois).*
Those without respect for God's Torah, His law, have no light in them. That includes you and all of your "Christian" friends.
The apostle Paul was chosen by the risen Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Response:
He was "chosen" in the same way as the serpent was permitted in the garden. God placed two trees in the garden of Eden, one with fruit that leads to life, and the other with fruit that leads to death (Scripture is like that garden, that has both life bearing and poisonous fruit). You need the spirit or light, to decipher, what is life bearing fruit and what isn't. Sheol = Grave / Death or "Paul", is a false apostle, and a test for Israel:
Deu 13:1* If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,*
Deu 13:2* And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;*
Deu 13:3* Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.*
Deu 13:4* Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
The apostle Sheol is a test for Israel. If you follow His teachings, you will not be counted as Israel / God's elect. You might still avoid the second death, thanks to Messiah's precious life blood, but you will rise in the second resurrection, not the first one. You will be judged according to your works, with everybody else, in the white throne judgement.
"To the law (Torah / תֹּרָה ) and to the testimony (Tehoodaw / תְּעוּדָה) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."*(Isa 8:20)
As far as the second letter of Peter. Assuming it's actually authentic, and not a forgery, as many scholars believe it to be, it still doesn't give a blanket approval of Paul's teaching, much less declare his writings divinely inspired scripture. You're reading that into the text. What it does say is that, those who don't know Torah, mainly people like yourself, take his writings and destroy themselves.
Most people who identify as "Christian", will be rejected, due to lawlessness.
Mat 7:21* Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.*
Mat 7:22* Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?*
Mat 7:23* And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, lawless ones (anomois).*
Those without respect for God's Torah, His law, have no light in them. That includes you and all of your "Christian" friends.
Lon
Well-known member
lain: John 6:68 Nobody idolizes or worships a book. Rather, they worship the one behind the book AND accept the book as from Him. I 'cherished' my wife's letters. Make me her 'letter' worshipper? :dizzy: Yes, I love my wife's love letters. Yes I love God's too. Any lame accusation is really just inane and lame.
RealityJerk
New member
Nobody? Are you sure about that? There are seven billion people in the world, there's got to be someone that worships a book. Seriously, the point is that, without a relationship with God, you won't have the ability, to recognize divine revelation when you see it, nor will it profit you spiritually. It will destroy you.
The whole of Romans 10 alone, contradicts this mis-fire of yours.
And never mind those who have come to know the Lord through a Gideon Bible in a hotel room night stand drawer - just them and The Book.
Or as Romans 10 summarizes all it says about this - "SO THEN faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD."
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
More of your mis-fires due to your very obvious inability in the use of proper study principles so needful in the study of one thing or another in Scripture, beyond basically believing the Scripture.
Fact is, that there is a chain of witness those warning passages you cited point to that is found being practiced in the NT the result of which validated Paul's Apostleship and Ministry as being God's will for men, this side of Unbelieving Israel's fall, and temporary setting aside.
You...have deceived...yourself.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
Lon
Well-known member
Nobody
Never seen a 'bible' shrine. I reckon neither have you....
In a group home? Why make fun of mentally deficient people? I don't toss my wife's love letters around on the floor. That'd be disrespectful and show little love for my wife.
Every Mormon and every other cultist says the same. It is incomplete and wrong-headed. If you cannot love the Lord your God with all your mind, your heart, soul, and strength are just following windmills.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: If a book is consistently true and infallible, you can pass a test. If not? Fail, both you and the book. You'll 'try' I'm sure. I've seen these so-called inconsistencies and so-called errors for years and years. Most of us, this forum, have. Sway one of us? One or two, but I believe we've built the faith of many more. The Bible IS consistent and without errors. Not all, but most of them brought here are juvenile, to be frank. You make a few other rookie mistakes, so I quit typing about midway. You are going to have to study and up your game. This freshman paper and challenge of yours is substandard academics and substandard spirituality in my assessment.
Yes, thus it is accurate and 'reliable.' "Timmy said the moon was made of cheese." The book? Infallible. The conveyance? What not to believe. There, the book served its purpose.
Then NOT reliable for life and Godliness. I've seen about every 'so-called' error. Not impressed. Not even a little bit.
Yet scripture is both. I guess you are going to throw #'s at me, that you 'think' are inconsistent. Nope. Try again and I mean on all of it. No atheist website is worth diddly squat on these. Frankly? Amateur hour. If you want to do sloppy math, don't do it here. On top of that, you have to topple every card. The consistency, reliability, veracity, clarity, and accuracy all apply to application. The Spirit is not going to do but corroborate what is true.
Nice try, freshman. :nono:
lain: You'll try, I'm sure. The Bible is solid. There are several threads on TOL that already have sent wanna-bees packing (they don't stay long or give up). We have a small smattering of Liberal theologians and atheists on TOL. We may have a few agnostics as well (they aren't very good at determining which they are imho - a good many of them anyway, leaves me wondering about their ability). Nope. If you can find it, it's true. "It accurately reported where something is, so - true." Other ways it is true? Yes. I mentioned one. You can google a bit of this and anticipate all my responses. We've been tossing bible critics out on their ears for years. I'd rather, however, get one or two of you to actually think for a change.
:nono: Wrong. They are accurate and correct and futher? Can be checked. It really puts biblical criticism to shame. I have a ton of articles addressing these oddball complaints. I even have a few from atheists that get angry because 'fellow ad hoc atheists' make the lot of them in-credible by their poor prowess and attempts. It doesn't do well for them, when they cannot even keep to the same script with one another either.
Once you start stacking it all together, you are quite mistaken. Very much so. I've taken Bible Archeology. I've taken Biblical history. You don't have a leg to stand on. It is all true.
I'm telling you, before you even 'try' it will fail. EVERY wannabee on TOL to date has failed. You'll leave in a huff, stay and talk about other things but rarely this, or will hopefully be challenged enough to actually think carefully and wisely.
Ah, see what you did there? It was an amateur move throwing "Hebrew" in there. Do you read and understand Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? If not, lets leave it right there. Concordances aren't going to help you. Luke 4:15-21 Matthew 23:1-3 Why do you care? Does it matter to a guy who doesn't even want to consider the scriptures are true??? :think:
Sort of. Many things you can verify until you, at least are satisfied. I, for one, believe we went to the moon. A few do not. Can I prove it? Not exactly, but those tracks on the moon looks suspiciously like tire tracks. Can they be duped? Yeah, but not this consistently. Next? If you've met a Christian astronaut, it is hard to disbelieve they are sincere. In the end, we do have a bit of faith in things, but not without a good bit of heavy evidence. Scriptures too, carry quite a lot of their own consistency and veracity. Volumes have been writing about this.
Incorrect. Look up "Oldest Hebrew Manuscripts." You CANNOT possibly be this naïve and try to be any kind of authority ready to talk with Christians. You don't even know your facts. It is VERY important that you do. You are just going to get laughed out of here otherwise and deservedly so. I'm truncating here. You really need, imho, to study this matter out. Frankly, you aren't ready for a discussion when even your facts aren't worth the time or effort to read your immature knowledge. I'm not being mean. You simply cannot make a mistake on something of this magnitude and you've made serious error statements about every post you've pushed in this thread. You have to run with the big dogs or be left behind. -Lon
RealityJerk
New member
you admit that there are other books, besides the bible, that are free of contradictions. Following your standard of what is and isn't God's infallible word, you're admitting that every book free of contradictions is God's infallible word.
You also made the absurd proposition, that a book free of literal contradictions, but still containing inconsistencies/errors, is infallible. Do you know what the word “infallible“ means?
MERRIUM WEBSTER - Definition of infallible
1
: incapable of error : unerring an infallible memory
2
: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain an infallible remedy
3
: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
So you just admitted, that a book can be infallible, while containing errors. Following your own criteria, there are many infallible books in the world. Your standard of “infallibility” is in a book “serving its purpose” effectively. Its usefulness (two very subjective criteria, for determining infallibility). So now according to your own standard, every useful infallible book, with errors, that exists, can be considered a candidate for being God's word.
Your standard for “logically” identifying divinely inspired, infallible writings, is:
“free of contradictions” and “infallibility”. Like I explained in my previous post, that's a very dubious, flawed metric for gauging what books, are and aren't divinely inspired. Especially when you hold such a skewed notion of infalliblity. What is actually infallible, is actually without error. That means without contradictions, without any inconsistencies of any kind. It's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't then, it logically can't be inerrant or infallible, much less the word of almighty God.
Lon writes:
Then NOT reliable for life and Godliness.
Response:
In the above remark, you were responding to:
“ It gets certain facts wrong, about, for example, where certain skyscrapers are located in the United States, but its still consistent and free of contradiction, in its message. The book might state that the Empire State Building is in Miami Beach, rather than New York City. That's not a contradiction, that's just a factual, descriptive anomaly. An error. “
Good, now we have an idea of what you consider to be an error. If your bible, contains an error like the one I described above, then according to you, that book is in your own words “ NOT reliable for life and Godliness”. That's a bit of a stretch, but that's your position. A BOOK MUST BE ((((( PERFECT ))))) OR IT IS OF NO USE IN YOUR LIFE, THROW IT AWAAYYYYYY.....No. Not necessarily.
Lon writes:
I've seen about every 'so-called' error. Not impressed. Not even a little bit.
Response:
I have no idea what “errors” you're referring to exactly. Perhaps you can give some examples, rather than expressing how unimpressed you are. No one is impressed or really cares, if you're not impressed.
Lon writes:
Yet scripture is both. I guess you are going to throw #'s at me, that you 'think' are inconsistent. Nope. Try again and I mean on all of it. No atheist website is worth diddly squat on these. Frankly? Amateur hour. If you want to do sloppy math, don't do it here.
Response:
Lon is writing the above remarks, in response to what I said, I quote:
“ In closing, just because a book is free of apparent contradictions, it doesn't necessarily make it infallible. “
You claim, your bible is both free of contradictions and infallible, but you haven't proved it. You haven't presented us any clear examples of how that's so. You just continually repeat your assertion of infallibility, and how you've not been impressed by the evidence presented to you in the past, that attempts to refute your claim. You just keep continually making the assumption that my position relies on the same evidence that you've dismissed in the past. More, you dismissing your opponents arguments, is not the equivalent of you demonstrating how those arguments are wrong. Since you're the one, alluding to these supposedly, weak arguments, why don't you present some details on what exactly they are?
The veracity of an argument, doesn't rely on how you feel about it. Whether you're impressed by it or not, is irrelevant to its strength and truthfulness. We'll let others decide for themselves, who of us has a better case.
Lon writes:
On top of that, you have to topple every card. The consistency, reliability, veracity, clarity, and accuracy all apply to application.
Response:
Show us. You're making the claim, that the bible is consistent, reliable, clear and accurate. How so? In what way? Give us some examples. You saying that, without presenting any examples, is really not an argument, its just a statement of belief. You believe that the bible is consistent, reliable, clear and accurate, how so? Examples please.
Lon writes:
The Spirit is not going to do but corroborate what is true.
Response:
Now you're appealing to the spirit? The subjective, faith component of our human nature, our relationship with God? Is that how you determine what is God's word? You're all over the place. Earlier it was sheer intellect, logic, a rational analysis, that somehow establishes the bible as God's infallible word, now you're bringing in the spirit. Can you make up your mind? Is it one or the other, both? What?
Lon writes:
Nice try, freshman. You'll try, I'm sure. The Bible is solid.
Response:
Here we go again. Alright kindergartener, whatever you say. Why don't you try presenting some evidence, some examples, of how the bible is “solid”. Can you do that? Let's see.
Lon writes
There are several threads on TOL that already have sent wanna-bees packing (they don't stay long or give up). We have a small smattering of Liberal theologians and atheists on TOL. We may have a few agnostics as well (they aren't very good at determining which they are imho - a good many of them anyway, leaves me wondering about their ability).
Response:
Let's stay on the issue. Can you do that? Present some examples of how the bible, is “solid”, infallible, without error. How is it God's word.
Lon writes:
Nope. If you can find it, it's true. "It accurately reported where something is, so - true." Other ways it is true? Yes. I mentioned one. You can google a bit of this and anticipate all my responses. We've been tossing bible critics out on their ears for years. I'd rather, however, get one or two of you to actually think for a change.
Response:
Your claim that if a book is used by archeologists, to glean some information, on a certain location, it is automatically God's infallible word, is laughable. Quite absurd. So what if the bible is used by archeologists? I doubt archeologists, in China or in many other parts of the world, other than the middle east, are reading the bible to help them in their digs. Anyways, it's just a silly idea.
Lon writes:
Wrong. They are accurate and correct and futher? Can be checked. It really puts biblical criticism to shame.
Response:
The above remark is in response to what I wrote, I quote:
“There are many literary works, millions upon millions, that get the cities, locations, they are describing, correctly. Both fictional and non-fictional. For example, a war novel can provide completely accurate geographical information, descriptions of cities, towns...etc that doesn't imply that the novel is non-fiction, much less infallible. “
It's pretty clear what I said there. How is it wrong? There are many books, both fictional and non-fictional, that describe geographical locations, cities..etc, accurately. How does that make a book “infallible”? Just because you find such information in a book, let's say a novel, a fictional story, doesn't imply that every element of the story is fictional. I can write about a fictional character living in NYC, and describe NYC accurately. I can mention certain locations of the city, and how people travel through the city using the subway and even identity certain subway lines that actually exist, like the 2 and 3 trains, the J and Q train. All of these subway lines exist, they're real (I know, I use to live in NYC).
So a thousand years from now, or three thousand years from now, archeologists are using my fictional, 800 page, story book, novel, as a source of valuable information, helping them conduct archeological digs, at the site that was once, NYC . How does that make my novel “infallible” ? The “word of God”? It doesn't. You're being irrational, absurd, if you assert such nonsense.
Lon writes:
I have a ton of articles addressing these oddball complaints.
Response:
You have a “ton of articles”. How about that? Great, good for you.
Lon writes:
I even have a few from atheists that get angry because 'fellow ad hoc atheists' make the lot of them in-credible by their poor prowess and attempts. It doesn't do well for them, when they cannot even keep to the same script with one another either.
Response:
More irrelevant gobbledygook.
Lon writes:
Once you start stacking it all together, you are quite mistaken. Very much so.
Response:
Stacking what together? You haven't presented any examples of what you're referring to. Perhaps you can try? I'm “mistaken” about what? You're not making any sense. What “mistake” are you referring to?
Lon writes:
I've taken Bible Archeology. I've taken Biblical history. You don't have a leg to stand on. It is all true.
Response:
Who cares, what classes you've taken at Sunday school or wherever..It's irrelevant. What would be the use of me, letting you know, what courses I've taken in college? What degrees I have? None of that, lends strength to my argument. If I don't have a leg to stand on, then show me how that's the case? Stating I don't have a leg to stand on, without presenting a few examples as to why, is just....dumb. Stupid. Perhaps I don't have a leg, but I have an electric wheel chair, so I don't need to stand. I can run you over. How about that?
What is “all true”? Be more specific. You mean everything, in the bible, is true? No flaws, no inconsistencies? All true, in what way? Provide some examples. Again, just because a book, provides accurate information, about something or someone, doesn't make it, infallible, much less God's word, At least, give some biblical examples, of what you're talking about.
Lon writes:
I'm telling you, before you even 'try' it will fail. EVERY wannabee on TOL to date has failed.
Response:
You claim, that the bible is free of contradictions, inconsistencies, hence it is the word of God. Problem with your criteria, is that, just because a book doesn't have contradictions or inconsistencies, doesn't automatically make that book, God's infallible word. Muslims, say the exact same thing, that you're saying. Their Quran, is supposedly, free of contradictions and inconsistencies. If a Muslim says that, does it make it true? No. They can claim whatever they want, about their holy book.
The Quran itself says “
"Why don't they contemplate upon the Qur'an. Had it been originated from anyone besides Allah, then it would have been beset with inconsistencies and contradictions" (S 4 V 82)
If you google “ Quran Contradictions Answering Islam”, you'll find the article on the “answering Islam” website, that gives a list of contradictions in the Quran. Do you believe, that those contradictions are true? What contradictions on that list, do you consider to be a contradiction? If you show us, we can then, have a clear standard, of what you consider to be a contradiction.
Give us a few examples, of what you consider on that list of contradictions, to be an actual contradiction. If you don't, it's because you're afraid to define, reveal, what you consider to be a clear contradiction. And you're not that dumb. You know, I'm going to take that which you consider a contradiction in the Quran, and use it as a standard, when finding contradictions in the bible.
Now, if you refuse to do that, then perhaps you believe that the Quran is free of contradictions and inconsistencies, hence according to your criteria of what constitutes “Divine Revelation”, the Quran is the word of God. You might as well, admit the Quran is the infallible word of God, if you can't find contradictions in it, because that's your standard for identifying divine revelation.
Lon writes:
You'll leave in a huff, stay and talk about other things but rarely this, or will hopefully be challenged enough to actually think carefully and wisely.
Response:
Why don't you stop huffing and present your case for biblical inerrancy.
Lon writes:
Ah, see what you did there? It was an amateur move throwing "Hebrew" in there. Do you read and understand Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? If not, lets leave it right there. Concordances aren't going to help you.
Response:
It's crucial, to study the original biblical languages and culture, if you're going to study the bible. You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar or be fluent in Hebrew, to glean accurate insight from the Hebrew text. That's why we have dictionaries, concordances, commentaries..etc. So no, I will never ignore the original Hebrew or Greek text. You sound like one of those “KJV ONLY” people. Not good.
Lon writes:
Luke 4:15-21 Matthew 23:1-3 Why do you care? Does it matter to a guy who doesn't even want to consider the scriptures are true.
Response:
I recognize exactly what Yeshua (Hebrew for “Jesus”) and His twelve apostles, recognized as God's written, inspired word.
Lon writes:
Sort of. Many things you can verify until you, at least are satisfied. I, for one, believe we went to the moon. A few do not. Can I prove it? Not exactly, but those tracks on the moon looks suspiciously like tire tracks. Can they be duped? Yeah, but not this consistently.
Response:
Yeah “Sot Of”, as in it's an assumption that we have to make initially, and it's not based on logic, but on faith. What do the moon landings, have to do with us recognizing the bible as God's word? Nothing. The moon landings are a feat of modern engineering and technology. There's a huge difference, between establishing the probability, of the moon landings, and the divine authorship of an ancient text. There's really no way to establish that a text is divinely inspired, apart from faith. What would be your standard, for determining that?
First, what's the probability that the moon exists? Pretty good. I can study engineering and learn how NASA actually put our astronauts on that moon, up there in space, that actually, objectively exists. I can see pictures, television footage, of the landings. I can read books about it, authored by the astronauts themselves, by the engineers that designed the spacecraft. I can meet scores of people who were alive at the time of the moon landings. I can even watch the astronauts themselves describe their mission to the moon. I can meet the astronauts personally. They sometimes hold lectures, press conferences. Book signings. There are many ways to reasonably, ascertain the probability of the moon landings. This has nothing to do with philosophy, theology, religion.
How do you ascertain the likelihood of a book, being God's infallible word? You can't do it, apart from faith. It's a spiritual reality, hence much more subjective, than what is required to establish the probability of a recent event, like the moon landings. The probability of a book being God's word, is practically impossible to establish. You need a relationship with God first and that's not based on books, but the spirit of God. The very presence of God, working in your life.
Lon writes:
If you've met a Christian astronaut, it is hard to disbelieve they are sincere.
Response:
A “Christian astronaut”, might be sincere and very wrong. You can't determine truth or the probability of a book, being God's word, based on someone else's personal opinions or feelings. In this case, you would have to have the same spiritual insight and experience, to know for yourself what the astronaut is claiming. You're dealing with abstractions, not the objective world.
Lon writes:
In the end, we do have a bit of faith in things, but not without a good bit of heavy evidence. Scriptures too, carry quite a lot of their own consistency and veracity. Volumes have been writing about this.
Response:
The fact written works can be consistent and true, doesn't make them divinely inspired.
Lon writes:
Incorrect. Look up "Oldest Hebrew Manuscripts." You CANNOT possibly be this naïve and try to be any kind of authority ready to talk with Christians.
Response:
Lon writes the above statements, in response to:
“ It wasn't until recently, say the last 200 years, that the Jews printed the prophets and writings, alongside the five books of Moses. The five books of Moses, the “Torah proper”, has always been held to have the highest authority. It's the litmus, upon which all other scriptures are to be tested. All other Hebrew biblical texts (and non-Hebrew), are read in light of the Torah, five books of Moses. There was no official Jewish canon, until at least the late 1st century and that is debatable. Many ascribe the so called rabbinic counsel of Jamnia as a myth. The Jewish canon was open, in the first century. “
I stand behind everything I said. Telling me I'm incorrect, without presenting any evidence or at least an explanation as to why I'm wrong, is not a way to debate. I at least, grant you the courtesy, of providing you with an explanation. The reason for my position or why I believe you're wrong. You don't do that for me or our audience. You just say “ That's incorrect. You're an amateur. You're a freshman...”. How am I wrong about the Jewish concept of scriptural canonicity? Saying I'm wrong and not presenting an argument, is not debate. I can do that too...”You're wrong. Just wrong. Google it. You're a preschooler. You're wrong...etc”.
Lon writes:
“It is VERY important that you do. You are just going to get laughed out of here otherwise and deservedly so. I'm truncating here. You really need, imho, to study this matter out. Frankly, you aren't ready for a discussion when even your facts aren't worth the time or effort to read your immature knowledge. I'm not being mean. You simply cannot make a mistake on something of this magnitude and you've made serious error statements about every post you've pushed in this thread. You have to run with the big dogs or be left behind. -Lon”
Response:
Same familiar “tactic”. He tells me how incorrect and amateurish I am, and then goes on to tell me how I don't belong here..etc. Silly. He actually thinks he's debating.
You also made the absurd proposition, that a book free of literal contradictions, but still containing inconsistencies/errors, is infallible. Do you know what the word “infallible“ means?
MERRIUM WEBSTER - Definition of infallible
1
: incapable of error : unerring an infallible memory
2
: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain an infallible remedy
3
: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
So you just admitted, that a book can be infallible, while containing errors. Following your own criteria, there are many infallible books in the world. Your standard of “infallibility” is in a book “serving its purpose” effectively. Its usefulness (two very subjective criteria, for determining infallibility). So now according to your own standard, every useful infallible book, with errors, that exists, can be considered a candidate for being God's word.
Your standard for “logically” identifying divinely inspired, infallible writings, is:
“free of contradictions” and “infallibility”. Like I explained in my previous post, that's a very dubious, flawed metric for gauging what books, are and aren't divinely inspired. Especially when you hold such a skewed notion of infalliblity. What is actually infallible, is actually without error. That means without contradictions, without any inconsistencies of any kind. It's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't then, it logically can't be inerrant or infallible, much less the word of almighty God.
Lon writes:
Then NOT reliable for life and Godliness.
Response:
In the above remark, you were responding to:
“ It gets certain facts wrong, about, for example, where certain skyscrapers are located in the United States, but its still consistent and free of contradiction, in its message. The book might state that the Empire State Building is in Miami Beach, rather than New York City. That's not a contradiction, that's just a factual, descriptive anomaly. An error. “
Good, now we have an idea of what you consider to be an error. If your bible, contains an error like the one I described above, then according to you, that book is in your own words “ NOT reliable for life and Godliness”. That's a bit of a stretch, but that's your position. A BOOK MUST BE ((((( PERFECT ))))) OR IT IS OF NO USE IN YOUR LIFE, THROW IT AWAAYYYYYY.....No. Not necessarily.
Lon writes:
I've seen about every 'so-called' error. Not impressed. Not even a little bit.
Response:
I have no idea what “errors” you're referring to exactly. Perhaps you can give some examples, rather than expressing how unimpressed you are. No one is impressed or really cares, if you're not impressed.
Lon writes:
Yet scripture is both. I guess you are going to throw #'s at me, that you 'think' are inconsistent. Nope. Try again and I mean on all of it. No atheist website is worth diddly squat on these. Frankly? Amateur hour. If you want to do sloppy math, don't do it here.
Response:
Lon is writing the above remarks, in response to what I said, I quote:
“ In closing, just because a book is free of apparent contradictions, it doesn't necessarily make it infallible. “
You claim, your bible is both free of contradictions and infallible, but you haven't proved it. You haven't presented us any clear examples of how that's so. You just continually repeat your assertion of infallibility, and how you've not been impressed by the evidence presented to you in the past, that attempts to refute your claim. You just keep continually making the assumption that my position relies on the same evidence that you've dismissed in the past. More, you dismissing your opponents arguments, is not the equivalent of you demonstrating how those arguments are wrong. Since you're the one, alluding to these supposedly, weak arguments, why don't you present some details on what exactly they are?
The veracity of an argument, doesn't rely on how you feel about it. Whether you're impressed by it or not, is irrelevant to its strength and truthfulness. We'll let others decide for themselves, who of us has a better case.
Lon writes:
On top of that, you have to topple every card. The consistency, reliability, veracity, clarity, and accuracy all apply to application.
Response:
Show us. You're making the claim, that the bible is consistent, reliable, clear and accurate. How so? In what way? Give us some examples. You saying that, without presenting any examples, is really not an argument, its just a statement of belief. You believe that the bible is consistent, reliable, clear and accurate, how so? Examples please.
Lon writes:
The Spirit is not going to do but corroborate what is true.
Response:
Now you're appealing to the spirit? The subjective, faith component of our human nature, our relationship with God? Is that how you determine what is God's word? You're all over the place. Earlier it was sheer intellect, logic, a rational analysis, that somehow establishes the bible as God's infallible word, now you're bringing in the spirit. Can you make up your mind? Is it one or the other, both? What?
Lon writes:
Nice try, freshman. You'll try, I'm sure. The Bible is solid.
Response:
Here we go again. Alright kindergartener, whatever you say. Why don't you try presenting some evidence, some examples, of how the bible is “solid”. Can you do that? Let's see.
Lon writes
There are several threads on TOL that already have sent wanna-bees packing (they don't stay long or give up). We have a small smattering of Liberal theologians and atheists on TOL. We may have a few agnostics as well (they aren't very good at determining which they are imho - a good many of them anyway, leaves me wondering about their ability).
Response:
Let's stay on the issue. Can you do that? Present some examples of how the bible, is “solid”, infallible, without error. How is it God's word.
Lon writes:
Nope. If you can find it, it's true. "It accurately reported where something is, so - true." Other ways it is true? Yes. I mentioned one. You can google a bit of this and anticipate all my responses. We've been tossing bible critics out on their ears for years. I'd rather, however, get one or two of you to actually think for a change.
Response:
Your claim that if a book is used by archeologists, to glean some information, on a certain location, it is automatically God's infallible word, is laughable. Quite absurd. So what if the bible is used by archeologists? I doubt archeologists, in China or in many other parts of the world, other than the middle east, are reading the bible to help them in their digs. Anyways, it's just a silly idea.
Lon writes:
Wrong. They are accurate and correct and futher? Can be checked. It really puts biblical criticism to shame.
Response:
The above remark is in response to what I wrote, I quote:
“There are many literary works, millions upon millions, that get the cities, locations, they are describing, correctly. Both fictional and non-fictional. For example, a war novel can provide completely accurate geographical information, descriptions of cities, towns...etc that doesn't imply that the novel is non-fiction, much less infallible. “
It's pretty clear what I said there. How is it wrong? There are many books, both fictional and non-fictional, that describe geographical locations, cities..etc, accurately. How does that make a book “infallible”? Just because you find such information in a book, let's say a novel, a fictional story, doesn't imply that every element of the story is fictional. I can write about a fictional character living in NYC, and describe NYC accurately. I can mention certain locations of the city, and how people travel through the city using the subway and even identity certain subway lines that actually exist, like the 2 and 3 trains, the J and Q train. All of these subway lines exist, they're real (I know, I use to live in NYC).
So a thousand years from now, or three thousand years from now, archeologists are using my fictional, 800 page, story book, novel, as a source of valuable information, helping them conduct archeological digs, at the site that was once, NYC . How does that make my novel “infallible” ? The “word of God”? It doesn't. You're being irrational, absurd, if you assert such nonsense.
Lon writes:
I have a ton of articles addressing these oddball complaints.
Response:
You have a “ton of articles”. How about that? Great, good for you.
Lon writes:
I even have a few from atheists that get angry because 'fellow ad hoc atheists' make the lot of them in-credible by their poor prowess and attempts. It doesn't do well for them, when they cannot even keep to the same script with one another either.
Response:
More irrelevant gobbledygook.
Lon writes:
Once you start stacking it all together, you are quite mistaken. Very much so.
Response:
Stacking what together? You haven't presented any examples of what you're referring to. Perhaps you can try? I'm “mistaken” about what? You're not making any sense. What “mistake” are you referring to?
Lon writes:
I've taken Bible Archeology. I've taken Biblical history. You don't have a leg to stand on. It is all true.
Response:
Who cares, what classes you've taken at Sunday school or wherever..It's irrelevant. What would be the use of me, letting you know, what courses I've taken in college? What degrees I have? None of that, lends strength to my argument. If I don't have a leg to stand on, then show me how that's the case? Stating I don't have a leg to stand on, without presenting a few examples as to why, is just....dumb. Stupid. Perhaps I don't have a leg, but I have an electric wheel chair, so I don't need to stand. I can run you over. How about that?
What is “all true”? Be more specific. You mean everything, in the bible, is true? No flaws, no inconsistencies? All true, in what way? Provide some examples. Again, just because a book, provides accurate information, about something or someone, doesn't make it, infallible, much less God's word, At least, give some biblical examples, of what you're talking about.
Lon writes:
I'm telling you, before you even 'try' it will fail. EVERY wannabee on TOL to date has failed.
Response:
You claim, that the bible is free of contradictions, inconsistencies, hence it is the word of God. Problem with your criteria, is that, just because a book doesn't have contradictions or inconsistencies, doesn't automatically make that book, God's infallible word. Muslims, say the exact same thing, that you're saying. Their Quran, is supposedly, free of contradictions and inconsistencies. If a Muslim says that, does it make it true? No. They can claim whatever they want, about their holy book.
The Quran itself says “
"Why don't they contemplate upon the Qur'an. Had it been originated from anyone besides Allah, then it would have been beset with inconsistencies and contradictions" (S 4 V 82)
If you google “ Quran Contradictions Answering Islam”, you'll find the article on the “answering Islam” website, that gives a list of contradictions in the Quran. Do you believe, that those contradictions are true? What contradictions on that list, do you consider to be a contradiction? If you show us, we can then, have a clear standard, of what you consider to be a contradiction.
Give us a few examples, of what you consider on that list of contradictions, to be an actual contradiction. If you don't, it's because you're afraid to define, reveal, what you consider to be a clear contradiction. And you're not that dumb. You know, I'm going to take that which you consider a contradiction in the Quran, and use it as a standard, when finding contradictions in the bible.
Now, if you refuse to do that, then perhaps you believe that the Quran is free of contradictions and inconsistencies, hence according to your criteria of what constitutes “Divine Revelation”, the Quran is the word of God. You might as well, admit the Quran is the infallible word of God, if you can't find contradictions in it, because that's your standard for identifying divine revelation.
Lon writes:
You'll leave in a huff, stay and talk about other things but rarely this, or will hopefully be challenged enough to actually think carefully and wisely.
Response:
Why don't you stop huffing and present your case for biblical inerrancy.
Lon writes:
Ah, see what you did there? It was an amateur move throwing "Hebrew" in there. Do you read and understand Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? If not, lets leave it right there. Concordances aren't going to help you.
Response:
It's crucial, to study the original biblical languages and culture, if you're going to study the bible. You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar or be fluent in Hebrew, to glean accurate insight from the Hebrew text. That's why we have dictionaries, concordances, commentaries..etc. So no, I will never ignore the original Hebrew or Greek text. You sound like one of those “KJV ONLY” people. Not good.
Lon writes:
Luke 4:15-21 Matthew 23:1-3 Why do you care? Does it matter to a guy who doesn't even want to consider the scriptures are true.
Response:
I recognize exactly what Yeshua (Hebrew for “Jesus”) and His twelve apostles, recognized as God's written, inspired word.
Lon writes:
Sort of. Many things you can verify until you, at least are satisfied. I, for one, believe we went to the moon. A few do not. Can I prove it? Not exactly, but those tracks on the moon looks suspiciously like tire tracks. Can they be duped? Yeah, but not this consistently.
Response:
Yeah “Sot Of”, as in it's an assumption that we have to make initially, and it's not based on logic, but on faith. What do the moon landings, have to do with us recognizing the bible as God's word? Nothing. The moon landings are a feat of modern engineering and technology. There's a huge difference, between establishing the probability, of the moon landings, and the divine authorship of an ancient text. There's really no way to establish that a text is divinely inspired, apart from faith. What would be your standard, for determining that?
First, what's the probability that the moon exists? Pretty good. I can study engineering and learn how NASA actually put our astronauts on that moon, up there in space, that actually, objectively exists. I can see pictures, television footage, of the landings. I can read books about it, authored by the astronauts themselves, by the engineers that designed the spacecraft. I can meet scores of people who were alive at the time of the moon landings. I can even watch the astronauts themselves describe their mission to the moon. I can meet the astronauts personally. They sometimes hold lectures, press conferences. Book signings. There are many ways to reasonably, ascertain the probability of the moon landings. This has nothing to do with philosophy, theology, religion.
How do you ascertain the likelihood of a book, being God's infallible word? You can't do it, apart from faith. It's a spiritual reality, hence much more subjective, than what is required to establish the probability of a recent event, like the moon landings. The probability of a book being God's word, is practically impossible to establish. You need a relationship with God first and that's not based on books, but the spirit of God. The very presence of God, working in your life.
Lon writes:
If you've met a Christian astronaut, it is hard to disbelieve they are sincere.
Response:
A “Christian astronaut”, might be sincere and very wrong. You can't determine truth or the probability of a book, being God's word, based on someone else's personal opinions or feelings. In this case, you would have to have the same spiritual insight and experience, to know for yourself what the astronaut is claiming. You're dealing with abstractions, not the objective world.
Lon writes:
In the end, we do have a bit of faith in things, but not without a good bit of heavy evidence. Scriptures too, carry quite a lot of their own consistency and veracity. Volumes have been writing about this.
Response:
The fact written works can be consistent and true, doesn't make them divinely inspired.
Lon writes:
Incorrect. Look up "Oldest Hebrew Manuscripts." You CANNOT possibly be this naïve and try to be any kind of authority ready to talk with Christians.
Response:
Lon writes the above statements, in response to:
“ It wasn't until recently, say the last 200 years, that the Jews printed the prophets and writings, alongside the five books of Moses. The five books of Moses, the “Torah proper”, has always been held to have the highest authority. It's the litmus, upon which all other scriptures are to be tested. All other Hebrew biblical texts (and non-Hebrew), are read in light of the Torah, five books of Moses. There was no official Jewish canon, until at least the late 1st century and that is debatable. Many ascribe the so called rabbinic counsel of Jamnia as a myth. The Jewish canon was open, in the first century. “
I stand behind everything I said. Telling me I'm incorrect, without presenting any evidence or at least an explanation as to why I'm wrong, is not a way to debate. I at least, grant you the courtesy, of providing you with an explanation. The reason for my position or why I believe you're wrong. You don't do that for me or our audience. You just say “ That's incorrect. You're an amateur. You're a freshman...”. How am I wrong about the Jewish concept of scriptural canonicity? Saying I'm wrong and not presenting an argument, is not debate. I can do that too...”You're wrong. Just wrong. Google it. You're a preschooler. You're wrong...etc”.
Lon writes:
“It is VERY important that you do. You are just going to get laughed out of here otherwise and deservedly so. I'm truncating here. You really need, imho, to study this matter out. Frankly, you aren't ready for a discussion when even your facts aren't worth the time or effort to read your immature knowledge. I'm not being mean. You simply cannot make a mistake on something of this magnitude and you've made serious error statements about every post you've pushed in this thread. You have to run with the big dogs or be left behind. -Lon”
Response:
Same familiar “tactic”. He tells me how incorrect and amateurish I am, and then goes on to tell me how I don't belong here..etc. Silly. He actually thinks he's debating.
Last edited:
RealityJerk
New member
This is the first half of the above post. For some reason it didn't paste completely. The following is "Part 1", and the previous post is "part 2"...................
Lon writes:
If a book is consistently true and infallible, you can pass a test. If not? Fail, both you and the book. You'll 'try' I'm sure.
Response:
Stating that the bible is God's word, because it's “consistently true” and “infallible”, doesn't make it consistently true and automatically infallible, much less the word of almighty God. If a Muslim, told you that the Quran is God's word, because it is consistently true and infallible, you would laugh at him, for making such a silly statement.
You have to define your terms, in a debate. You haven't done that. Consistently true in what way? Give some examples of consistency. If we find inconsistencies and contradictions, then by your own standard, the bible is not the word of God. Nonetheless, you must provide some examples of how the book is supposedly “consistently true”. Stating that it mentions the names of ancient cities, doesn't make a book consistently true in other areas, nor infallible, much less God's word. Other books likewise mention cities, among other events in history, that doesn't make the content of that book “consistently true” in every subject it covers, nor infallible, much less the word of almighty God.
You're making the claim, that we can determine, if a book is God's word, based on sheer logic and human reasoning. The burden of proof is upon you, the claimant, to show, logically, reasonably, how your claim, that a certain book is God's infallible word, is indeed that. So do that and stop tap dancing.
What in your estimation is “consistently true” about the bible, and how does that make it God's infallible word? Once you do that, I can test exactly what you're saying, by looking for the opposite of what you've claimed. That simple. If I don't find it, then I can logically, reasonably conclude that, the book is free of inconsistencies and contradictions.
Definition of consistency
plural consistencies
1
a archaic : condition of adhering together : firmness of material substance
b : firmness of constitution or character : persistency
… the rigid consistency with which he had adhered to its principles … — Nathaniel Hawthorne
2
: degree of firmness, density, viscosity, or resistance to movement or separation of constituent particles Boil the juice to the consistency of a thick syrup.
3
a : agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : correspondence The furnishings and decorations in all the rooms reflect a consistency of style.; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction
b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession followed her own advice with consistency
MERRIAM-WEBSTER Definition of consistency
plural consistencies
1
a archaic : condition of adhering together : firmness of material substance
b : firmness of constitution or character : persistency
… the rigid consistency with which he had adhered to its principles … — Nathaniel Hawthorne
2
: degree of firmness, density, viscosity, or resistance to movement or separation of constituent particles Boil the juice to the consistency of a thick syrup.
3
a : agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : correspondence The furnishings and decorations in all the rooms reflect a consistency of style.; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction
b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession followed her own advice with consistency
An example of consistency in a sentence:
"His statements on this subject have lacked consistency."
So let me help you, in completing the necessary task of defining your terms. The bible is "consistently true", numerically... (Here it says 44 horses, there it says 44, there in respect to this, it also says 44, it never says anything other than that. If it did, that would be a contradiction, an inconsistency, because according to this, it's clearly 44 horses and nothing else..)...Conceptually ,chronologically, historically, geographically and most importantly, theologically. What? Be precise.
Are the above subject areas mentioned, what you claim is "consistently true"? We (Everyone reading our friendly exchange and my self), await your clear and to the point definition of what, in your estimation, constitutes "consistency".Thank you.
Lon writes:
I've seen these so-called inconsistencies and so-called errors for years and years. Most of us, this forum, have. Sway one of us? One or two, but I believe we've built the faith of many more.
Response:
What were those “supposed” inconsistencies and errors? Give some examples. By identifying them, I'll get a better idea of what your definition of “consistency” is and isn't. Get it? Define your terms.
As far as trying to “sway” opinions, don't delude yourself. I'm not taking the time off my busy schedule, to convince you of anything. So far, you've shown me that you are quite irrational and completely brainwashed. I write this for others, who might still have a modicum of common sense and are genuinely seeking the truth.
My personal critique of you, might be wrong, and has no bearing on the issue we're discussing. You might very well be right, regardless of your character or attitude. I don't judge arguments on the bases of the arguers character, attitude or supposed lack of an education. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you can, consider what I just said and stop assuming to much about the person you're debating.
I mainly engage in debate, to test my own beliefs. All of my cherished assertions should be open to scrutiny and testing, a real truth seeker wouldn't have it any other way. You should likewise consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Lon writes:
The Bible IS consistent and without errors.
Response:
Prove it. You're making the claim, now at least, present some examples from the bible that identify your definition of perfection and divine inspiration. Just saying that your holy book “IS consistent and without errors”, doesn't make it so, anymore than a Muslim or a Mormon, saying that about their own scriptures.
You can claim whatever you want, but in order to establish your claim, you're going to have to present your case for scriptural inerrancy and divine authority. You're the one asserting that this can be established logically and reasonably. Sheer logic, human reasoning is enough. Prove it then, logically, rationally, how your book is the supposed “infallible word of God”.
I don't make such a claim, because I recognize that, human logic and reasoning isn't enough, for a believer to know, if a text is divinely inspired. There isn't a rational, objective, metric or standard, that can establish, any book or collection of writings, as divinely inspired and authoritative. It's beyond human logic or reasoning. It's supernatural or “supra-rational”. It's not in the realm of human reasoning and analysis. It's in the subjective realm of faith.
That scares people like you, because you don't have much faith. You fool yourself into thinking “sheer logic” supports your faith, and it doesn't. Logic doesn't support your personal, supernatural experience with God. Your relationship with God, is beyond human logic. But, you want to fall into the pit, of appealing to the fallen human intellect, human reasoning, for identifying a certain piece of literature as “God's word”, go right ahead. Embarrass yourself.
Lon writes:
Not all, but most of them brought here are juvenile, to be frank.
Response:
How so? Give a few examples. Just saying your opponents argument is “juvenile” , doesn't make it so. That's not the way to debate an issue. Telling your opponents that, their arguments are juvenile, doesn't make them juvenile. Demonstrate why the opposing view is “juvenile”. Get it? Saying that my argument is weak, poor, doesn't make it so. Present your case.
Lon writes:
You make a few other rookie mistakes, so I quit typing about midway.
Response:
Why quit typing? If I supposedly made a mistake, then take the opportunity to show me how I made a mistake. This is a debate. Do you delude yourself into thinking you're above doing that? Just saying I made a mistake and calling me a “rookie”, doesn't strengthen your argument, much less make me whatever you pretend to make me. Perhaps you're the “rookie”?
Lon writes:
You are going to have to study and up your game. This freshman paper and challenge of yours is substandard academics and substandard spirituality in my assessment.
Response:
There you go again....
Definition of ad hominem
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Let's assume I'm a rookie, or a freshman as you constantly assert. So what? Even the rookie or freshman that you're debating, might be correct on an issue and you wrong. Do you realize that? How about this, you're a preschooler, that's my personal “assessment” of you. You're in preschool, I'm at least in High School. How about that? Are you impressed by my personal “assessment”, about your level of competency? You haven't even reached Kindergarten yet. How about that? Yeah uuuuuuuuu, I'm so “witty”, I just “assessed” you to be a preschooler. I really “showed you”, “preschooler”, yeah..(walks away “victoriously” from the debate..).
Am I strengthening my position, my arguments, by informing you of my personal “assessments” regarding your level of competency? Nope. I can personally “assess” whatever about you I want and it won't make a hill of beans, as to whether I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't strengthen my position, at all. I would have to do better than that, as in like, actually present some reason, evidence, for the points I'm arguing. You apparently don't realize that, so it's quite clear who is the actual “rookie” here.
Lon writes:
Yes, thus it is accurate and 'reliable.' "Timmy said the moon was made of cheese." The book? Infallible. The conveyance? What not to believe. There, the book served its purpose.
Response:
Your above remark, is in response to what I said here:
“ Perhaps a literary work, is free of textual, “literal” contradictions, yet nonetheless, full of error, in it's descriptive content.”
Your definition of “infallible” and what constitutes God's word, is quite odd to say the least. According to what you said in an earlier post, one of your standards for “logically” determining that a book is God's infallible word, is that it is free of contradictions. Now you admit that there are other books, besides the bible, that are free of contradictions. Following your standard of what is and isn't God's infallible word, you're admitting that every book free of contradictions is God's infallible word.
You also made the absurd proposition, that a book free of literal contradictions, but still containing inconsistencies/errors, is infallible. Do you know what the word “infallible“ means?
MERRIUM WEBSTER - Definition of infallible
1
Lon writes:
If a book is consistently true and infallible, you can pass a test. If not? Fail, both you and the book. You'll 'try' I'm sure.
Response:
Stating that the bible is God's word, because it's “consistently true” and “infallible”, doesn't make it consistently true and automatically infallible, much less the word of almighty God. If a Muslim, told you that the Quran is God's word, because it is consistently true and infallible, you would laugh at him, for making such a silly statement.
You have to define your terms, in a debate. You haven't done that. Consistently true in what way? Give some examples of consistency. If we find inconsistencies and contradictions, then by your own standard, the bible is not the word of God. Nonetheless, you must provide some examples of how the book is supposedly “consistently true”. Stating that it mentions the names of ancient cities, doesn't make a book consistently true in other areas, nor infallible, much less God's word. Other books likewise mention cities, among other events in history, that doesn't make the content of that book “consistently true” in every subject it covers, nor infallible, much less the word of almighty God.
You're making the claim, that we can determine, if a book is God's word, based on sheer logic and human reasoning. The burden of proof is upon you, the claimant, to show, logically, reasonably, how your claim, that a certain book is God's infallible word, is indeed that. So do that and stop tap dancing.
What in your estimation is “consistently true” about the bible, and how does that make it God's infallible word? Once you do that, I can test exactly what you're saying, by looking for the opposite of what you've claimed. That simple. If I don't find it, then I can logically, reasonably conclude that, the book is free of inconsistencies and contradictions.
Definition of consistency
plural consistencies
1
a archaic : condition of adhering together : firmness of material substance
b : firmness of constitution or character : persistency
… the rigid consistency with which he had adhered to its principles … — Nathaniel Hawthorne
2
: degree of firmness, density, viscosity, or resistance to movement or separation of constituent particles Boil the juice to the consistency of a thick syrup.
3
a : agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : correspondence The furnishings and decorations in all the rooms reflect a consistency of style.; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction
b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession followed her own advice with consistency
MERRIAM-WEBSTER Definition of consistency
plural consistencies
1
a archaic : condition of adhering together : firmness of material substance
b : firmness of constitution or character : persistency
… the rigid consistency with which he had adhered to its principles … — Nathaniel Hawthorne
2
: degree of firmness, density, viscosity, or resistance to movement or separation of constituent particles Boil the juice to the consistency of a thick syrup.
3
a : agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : correspondence The furnishings and decorations in all the rooms reflect a consistency of style.; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction
b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession followed her own advice with consistency
An example of consistency in a sentence:
"His statements on this subject have lacked consistency."
So let me help you, in completing the necessary task of defining your terms. The bible is "consistently true", numerically... (Here it says 44 horses, there it says 44, there in respect to this, it also says 44, it never says anything other than that. If it did, that would be a contradiction, an inconsistency, because according to this, it's clearly 44 horses and nothing else..)...Conceptually ,chronologically, historically, geographically and most importantly, theologically. What? Be precise.
Are the above subject areas mentioned, what you claim is "consistently true"? We (Everyone reading our friendly exchange and my self), await your clear and to the point definition of what, in your estimation, constitutes "consistency".Thank you.
Lon writes:
I've seen these so-called inconsistencies and so-called errors for years and years. Most of us, this forum, have. Sway one of us? One or two, but I believe we've built the faith of many more.
Response:
What were those “supposed” inconsistencies and errors? Give some examples. By identifying them, I'll get a better idea of what your definition of “consistency” is and isn't. Get it? Define your terms.
As far as trying to “sway” opinions, don't delude yourself. I'm not taking the time off my busy schedule, to convince you of anything. So far, you've shown me that you are quite irrational and completely brainwashed. I write this for others, who might still have a modicum of common sense and are genuinely seeking the truth.
My personal critique of you, might be wrong, and has no bearing on the issue we're discussing. You might very well be right, regardless of your character or attitude. I don't judge arguments on the bases of the arguers character, attitude or supposed lack of an education. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you can, consider what I just said and stop assuming to much about the person you're debating.
I mainly engage in debate, to test my own beliefs. All of my cherished assertions should be open to scrutiny and testing, a real truth seeker wouldn't have it any other way. You should likewise consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Lon writes:
The Bible IS consistent and without errors.
Response:
Prove it. You're making the claim, now at least, present some examples from the bible that identify your definition of perfection and divine inspiration. Just saying that your holy book “IS consistent and without errors”, doesn't make it so, anymore than a Muslim or a Mormon, saying that about their own scriptures.
You can claim whatever you want, but in order to establish your claim, you're going to have to present your case for scriptural inerrancy and divine authority. You're the one asserting that this can be established logically and reasonably. Sheer logic, human reasoning is enough. Prove it then, logically, rationally, how your book is the supposed “infallible word of God”.
I don't make such a claim, because I recognize that, human logic and reasoning isn't enough, for a believer to know, if a text is divinely inspired. There isn't a rational, objective, metric or standard, that can establish, any book or collection of writings, as divinely inspired and authoritative. It's beyond human logic or reasoning. It's supernatural or “supra-rational”. It's not in the realm of human reasoning and analysis. It's in the subjective realm of faith.
That scares people like you, because you don't have much faith. You fool yourself into thinking “sheer logic” supports your faith, and it doesn't. Logic doesn't support your personal, supernatural experience with God. Your relationship with God, is beyond human logic. But, you want to fall into the pit, of appealing to the fallen human intellect, human reasoning, for identifying a certain piece of literature as “God's word”, go right ahead. Embarrass yourself.
Lon writes:
Not all, but most of them brought here are juvenile, to be frank.
Response:
How so? Give a few examples. Just saying your opponents argument is “juvenile” , doesn't make it so. That's not the way to debate an issue. Telling your opponents that, their arguments are juvenile, doesn't make them juvenile. Demonstrate why the opposing view is “juvenile”. Get it? Saying that my argument is weak, poor, doesn't make it so. Present your case.
Lon writes:
You make a few other rookie mistakes, so I quit typing about midway.
Response:
Why quit typing? If I supposedly made a mistake, then take the opportunity to show me how I made a mistake. This is a debate. Do you delude yourself into thinking you're above doing that? Just saying I made a mistake and calling me a “rookie”, doesn't strengthen your argument, much less make me whatever you pretend to make me. Perhaps you're the “rookie”?
Lon writes:
You are going to have to study and up your game. This freshman paper and challenge of yours is substandard academics and substandard spirituality in my assessment.
Response:
There you go again....
Definition of ad hominem
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
Let's assume I'm a rookie, or a freshman as you constantly assert. So what? Even the rookie or freshman that you're debating, might be correct on an issue and you wrong. Do you realize that? How about this, you're a preschooler, that's my personal “assessment” of you. You're in preschool, I'm at least in High School. How about that? Are you impressed by my personal “assessment”, about your level of competency? You haven't even reached Kindergarten yet. How about that? Yeah uuuuuuuuu, I'm so “witty”, I just “assessed” you to be a preschooler. I really “showed you”, “preschooler”, yeah..(walks away “victoriously” from the debate..).
Am I strengthening my position, my arguments, by informing you of my personal “assessments” regarding your level of competency? Nope. I can personally “assess” whatever about you I want and it won't make a hill of beans, as to whether I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't strengthen my position, at all. I would have to do better than that, as in like, actually present some reason, evidence, for the points I'm arguing. You apparently don't realize that, so it's quite clear who is the actual “rookie” here.
Lon writes:
Yes, thus it is accurate and 'reliable.' "Timmy said the moon was made of cheese." The book? Infallible. The conveyance? What not to believe. There, the book served its purpose.
Response:
Your above remark, is in response to what I said here:
“ Perhaps a literary work, is free of textual, “literal” contradictions, yet nonetheless, full of error, in it's descriptive content.”
Your definition of “infallible” and what constitutes God's word, is quite odd to say the least. According to what you said in an earlier post, one of your standards for “logically” determining that a book is God's infallible word, is that it is free of contradictions. Now you admit that there are other books, besides the bible, that are free of contradictions. Following your standard of what is and isn't God's infallible word, you're admitting that every book free of contradictions is God's infallible word.
You also made the absurd proposition, that a book free of literal contradictions, but still containing inconsistencies/errors, is infallible. Do you know what the word “infallible“ means?
MERRIUM WEBSTER - Definition of infallible
1
Last edited:
