For those who claim that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" why do you believe this?
Seems to me the arguments to support this belief are usually circular. As in "The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God". And evidence that the Bible is the Word of God?" Because the Bible is without error or contradiction", i.e. inerrant.
Consider this OP a challenge. Give the skeptic a better argument to convince them that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God than the usual circular argument.
Why do you believe and why should the skeptic believe that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God"?
Break out of the circle.
Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #151
Okay, so, every single one of these "discrepancies" -- EVERY SINGLE ONE -- can be explained thusly:
They are all complementary. In other words, rather than one or more being "wrong" and another being "right" -- or even that they are all "wrong" because they differ to any degree (which is the assertion that you and folks like you want to make) -- together they give us a fuller picture of the events that took place, and/or what the original manuscripts actually said. There is nothing contradictory in:
1. the "different endings" themselves, or
2. the Holy Week accounts, or
3. the words of God at Jesus's baptism, or
4. the Trinity (I'll address this one specifically in a moment), or
5. the differences in the Lord's prayer, or
6. the differences regarding "Son of God" and "Son of Man" (this one, too, I will address specifically in a moment), or
7. "Isaiah"/"prophet"/"prophets" (this one, too, I will address specifically in a moment), or
8. "redemption" or "redemption through His blood"
The only alleged problem is the difference in exactness, as in exact words. Hey, just as an example for those who have at least a high school education (which I assume is everybody on this forum), in every class I ever had (with just a few possible exceptions, because I don't recall perfectly), the textbook we used was at least a third edition, if not the eighth or ninth. Does that make all the previous editions and even the current edition null and void? Of course not. This analogy is not quite one to one, of course, or an apples to apples comparison, because there are not multiple versions of the Bible, but the point is easily understood (by honest folks, anyway).
Okay some brief comments to specific Kapyong assertions:
As much as we might want the Gospels to conform to our modern conventions of history writing, they dont read like contemporary police reports. But that doesnt mean they dont contain reliable accounts. In fact, they are perfectly consonant with how the ancients recorded history. The key is to understand the literary conventions of the time, which was the mid-first century A.D., and how the Gospels fit that mold. Scholars like Michael Licona have noted that the genre of ancient literature that the Gospels most closely resemble is that of Greco-Roman biography. In reporting the speeches and activities of famous figures, writers utilized techniques in recording history that were perfectly acceptable at the time, such as compression (truncating longer speeches for the sake of brevity). The Gospel writers did this as well: they report that Jesus held crowds spellbound for hours with his preaching, yet his recorded sermons can be read in minutes. Also, events were moved around in a narrative for thematic reasons, which differed between the Gospel writers.
The question is whether the reconciliation is to one's satisfaction or not. To address what specifically you think can't be reconciled, I would have to know what those "differences" are. But again, I would assert that the accounts are complementary.
However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the Received Text, it has little support in fact. The story has been firmly dismissed by two of the top Erastian scholars in the world. Dr. H.J. de Jong, Dean of Theology at Leiden University, has this to say, "It has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."
Dr. Roland Bainton, of Yale University, has also demonstrated that Erasmus did not include the Comma because of any such promise, but instead he concluded "...the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." As it turns out, Erasmus was almost assuredly correct in this belief, as will be shown below. Further, this story is even admitted as apocryphal by the standard-bearer of contemporary textual criticism, Bruce Metzger.
One piece of disinformation which has served to bolster the belief that Erasmus relied on little to no Greek manuscript support is the continued misrepresentation of the Greek witness which Erasmus himself said that he used. Modern scholars will claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex Montfortianus, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex. Scholars will attempt to equate Britannicus with Montfortianus, but this is not legitimate, as the rendering of I John 5:7-8 in Erasmus' edition is different from that found in Montfortianus. Further, Montfortanius itself is not likely to be the supposed ringer which the Erasmus' Promise myth suggests, as it is dated by scholars such as Adam Clarke to the middle of the 13th century. Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century. His successor in this work, Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus), ultimately had access to 19 Greek manuscripts with which to edit his volumes, and the edition of 1550 became the major source of the King James New Testament translation. Theodore Beza added yet more ancient manuscripts to those used by Stephens, and prepared five editions based upon these added collations. Finally, the Elzevirs in 1624 produced a Greek codex which they called the Textus Receptus and which, despite its more extensive editing and use of more ancient manuscripts than Stephens had access to, was almost completely the same as the text of Stephens, differing only in a few spellings, word order, accent marks, and other minor changes.
Besides all that, 1 John 5:7-8 is only one of many proof texts of the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. The others are true, also, and Scripture interprets Scripture -- God is His own arbiter.
Together, they mean that Jesus was completely man and He was completely God. He was the God-man. He was the eternal, holy God who came in human flesh. Without being a man, He could not have died. If He was not God, He would have been a sinner. But as the God-man, He was the sinless man " the perfect sacrifice " a sinless sacrifice for our sins. He returned to life and ascended back to heaven.
Even so, this is also a "difference" without distinction, really. The single greatest theme in Scripture is that the redemption of man is accomplished, totally and completely, through the atonement for sin by Christ on the cross. He paid the wages of sin (death, Romans 3:23) on our behalf, giving His life -- HIS BLOOD -- becoming the propitiation of our sin and thereby satisfying God's justice. So yes, we have redemption for our sin, and whether "by His death on the cross" or "by His blood" is there in that Scripture or not, it is still true. Colossians 1:14 is but one place in the Bible among many that proclaim this truth. Again, Scripture interprets Scripture; God is His own arbiter. If anyone has a problem with Colossians 1:14 in particular for this reason, all that's necessary is to look at the following, among others:
* "...being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." (Romans 3:24-25)
* "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." (Romans 5:9)
* "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16)
* "In Him we have redemption through His blood..." (Ephesians 1:7)
* "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Ephesians 2:13)
* "...and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20)
Again, you disagree. That's all well and fine. As at the beginning, so it (probably) is at the end: we agree to disagree.
Again, grace and peace to you, Kapyong.
They are all complementary. In other words, rather than one or more being "wrong" and another being "right" -- or even that they are all "wrong" because they differ to any degree (which is the assertion that you and folks like you want to make) -- together they give us a fuller picture of the events that took place, and/or what the original manuscripts actually said. There is nothing contradictory in:
1. the "different endings" themselves, or
2. the Holy Week accounts, or
3. the words of God at Jesus's baptism, or
4. the Trinity (I'll address this one specifically in a moment), or
5. the differences in the Lord's prayer, or
6. the differences regarding "Son of God" and "Son of Man" (this one, too, I will address specifically in a moment), or
7. "Isaiah"/"prophet"/"prophets" (this one, too, I will address specifically in a moment), or
8. "redemption" or "redemption through His blood"
The only alleged problem is the difference in exactness, as in exact words. Hey, just as an example for those who have at least a high school education (which I assume is everybody on this forum), in every class I ever had (with just a few possible exceptions, because I don't recall perfectly), the textbook we used was at least a third edition, if not the eighth or ninth. Does that make all the previous editions and even the current edition null and void? Of course not. This analogy is not quite one to one, of course, or an apples to apples comparison, because there are not multiple versions of the Bible, but the point is easily understood (by honest folks, anyway).
Okay some brief comments to specific Kapyong assertions:
This is false; they can absolutely be reconciled, and have been.Kapyong wrote: The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.
As much as we might want the Gospels to conform to our modern conventions of history writing, they dont read like contemporary police reports. But that doesnt mean they dont contain reliable accounts. In fact, they are perfectly consonant with how the ancients recorded history. The key is to understand the literary conventions of the time, which was the mid-first century A.D., and how the Gospels fit that mold. Scholars like Michael Licona have noted that the genre of ancient literature that the Gospels most closely resemble is that of Greco-Roman biography. In reporting the speeches and activities of famous figures, writers utilized techniques in recording history that were perfectly acceptable at the time, such as compression (truncating longer speeches for the sake of brevity). The Gospel writers did this as well: they report that Jesus held crowds spellbound for hours with his preaching, yet his recorded sermons can be read in minutes. Also, events were moved around in a narrative for thematic reasons, which differed between the Gospel writers.
The question is whether the reconciliation is to one's satisfaction or not. To address what specifically you think can't be reconciled, I would have to know what those "differences" are. But again, I would assert that the accounts are complementary.
It is not uncommon to find opponents of the Johannine Comma who will uncritically bandy about the claim that Erasmus, a 16th century textual scholar whose Greek New Testament editions were included among the sources of the Received Text and hence the King James, added the Comma to his third edition of 1522 based upon the criticism of certain colleagues. It is said that he was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first two editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that be dashed off a copy of the Greek New Testament, complete with Comma, and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet and dripping. He thus included the Comma on this "evidence".Kapyong wrote: 1 John 5:7
The Trinity
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "
This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century. Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it". Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get!
However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the Received Text, it has little support in fact. The story has been firmly dismissed by two of the top Erastian scholars in the world. Dr. H.J. de Jong, Dean of Theology at Leiden University, has this to say, "It has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."
Dr. Roland Bainton, of Yale University, has also demonstrated that Erasmus did not include the Comma because of any such promise, but instead he concluded "...the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." As it turns out, Erasmus was almost assuredly correct in this belief, as will be shown below. Further, this story is even admitted as apocryphal by the standard-bearer of contemporary textual criticism, Bruce Metzger.
One piece of disinformation which has served to bolster the belief that Erasmus relied on little to no Greek manuscript support is the continued misrepresentation of the Greek witness which Erasmus himself said that he used. Modern scholars will claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex Montfortianus, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex. Scholars will attempt to equate Britannicus with Montfortianus, but this is not legitimate, as the rendering of I John 5:7-8 in Erasmus' edition is different from that found in Montfortianus. Further, Montfortanius itself is not likely to be the supposed ringer which the Erasmus' Promise myth suggests, as it is dated by scholars such as Adam Clarke to the middle of the 13th century. Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century. His successor in this work, Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus), ultimately had access to 19 Greek manuscripts with which to edit his volumes, and the edition of 1550 became the major source of the King James New Testament translation. Theodore Beza added yet more ancient manuscripts to those used by Stephens, and prepared five editions based upon these added collations. Finally, the Elzevirs in 1624 produced a Greek codex which they called the Textus Receptus and which, despite its more extensive editing and use of more ancient manuscripts than Stephens had access to, was almost completely the same as the text of Stephens, differing only in a few spellings, word order, accent marks, and other minor changes.
Besides all that, 1 John 5:7-8 is only one of many proof texts of the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. The others are true, also, and Scripture interprets Scripture -- God is His own arbiter.
These two titles of Christ are synonymous in the sense that they both fully refer to Jesus. They are not antonyms, but are used interchangeably based on the context, depending on whether it is more necessary to show His humanity (Son of Man) or His deity ("Son of God). Both phrases are used only for Jesus Christ in the scriptures. Both terms were used of Christ because He was 100% man and He was 100% God. The Jews understood the meaning of these terms. Today, we focus in on the word son and sometimes are not aware that both expressions had special meanings. Son of man reminds us that Jesus became a man so that He could die. Son of God reminds us that Jesus is God so that He could live a sinless life or be the perfect Lamb of God. Only as the God-man could He die a sinless, holy sacrifice for our sins.Kapyong wrote: the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".
Together, they mean that Jesus was completely man and He was completely God. He was the God-man. He was the eternal, holy God who came in human flesh. Without being a man, He could not have died. If He was not God, He would have been a sinner. But as the God-man, He was the sinless man " the perfect sacrifice " a sinless sacrifice for our sins. He returned to life and ascended back to heaven.
This is a little bit funny because it's the other side of an objection raised by another poster in this thread who took issue with a quote from Zechariah that was actually credited in Scripture to Jeremiah, and the resolution is basically the same: it was credited to Isaiah because he was the more prominent prophet than Malachi. What was written in Exodus was about Moses, who was a shadow/type of the true Deliverer -- Jesus Christ -- to come. Besides this, both "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." and "As it is written in the prophets..." can truthfully be used, so there really is no issue.Kapyong wrote: Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets". Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.
Actually, the two translations that I like the best, the NASB and the ESV, both say, "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Apart from the King James Version, I'm having a hard time finding a version with "through His blood" in that verse at all.Kapyong wrote:Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood
All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"
But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.
Even so, this is also a "difference" without distinction, really. The single greatest theme in Scripture is that the redemption of man is accomplished, totally and completely, through the atonement for sin by Christ on the cross. He paid the wages of sin (death, Romans 3:23) on our behalf, giving His life -- HIS BLOOD -- becoming the propitiation of our sin and thereby satisfying God's justice. So yes, we have redemption for our sin, and whether "by His death on the cross" or "by His blood" is there in that Scripture or not, it is still true. Colossians 1:14 is but one place in the Bible among many that proclaim this truth. Again, Scripture interprets Scripture; God is His own arbiter. If anyone has a problem with Colossians 1:14 in particular for this reason, all that's necessary is to look at the following, among others:
* "...being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." (Romans 3:24-25)
* "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." (Romans 5:9)
* "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16)
* "In Him we have redemption through His blood..." (Ephesians 1:7)
* "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Ephesians 2:13)
* "...and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20)
Well, it shows the futility of your arguments, for starters. I could go on, but that's enough.Kapyong wrote: So what does this show?
Again, you disagree. That's all well and fine. As at the beginning, so it (probably) is at the end: we agree to disagree.
Had to make that little correction, there (opinions). But yeah. I wouldn't have it any other way. Don't just take my (or Kapyong's) word for it. Investigate for yourself. Absolutely.Kapyong wrote: Readers are encouraged to compare these OPINIONS with PinSeeker's claims.
Again, grace and peace to you, Kapyong.
Last edited by PinSeeker on Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #152Self-evident as in (how Deist Thomas Paine might have put it) the "Book of" Creation. Creation, (Nature) is evidence of a Creator. According to Reason which he also held in high regard.Don McIntosh wrote:This sounds like what atheist John Loftus has called "The Outsider Test of Faith," the idea being that religious beliefs are the product of culture rather than of reason. It's a point worth making, I guess, but it seems overstated and possibly self-defeating. I mean, there aren't many Christians in the Arab-majority countries, it's true, but there aren't many atheists either.marco wrote:Don McIntosh wrote:
In other words almost no one believes a proposition of holds to a particular view of the world simply for no reason at all.
But the reason can be as simple as accepting the word of adults, priests, doctors, preachers... I would guess that of the millions of believers in an Abrahamic God, very, very few have analysed the axioms of their belief. Geography and inheritance play prominent parts.
That's arguable. According to Christians like John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga (and me), the awareness of God's presence can be directly experienced by the "sensus divinitatis" (C.S. Lewis called it the Numinous), so that the existence of God is self-evident. But we can simply disregard that experience, or assign some elaborate evolutionary explanation for it, if we so choose, and (dis)believe whatever we want to (dis)believe. That's why I mentioned the seeming impossibility of proving the truth of an axiom or a self-evident proposition. Presumably there is no logical means to prove the validity of logic to a skeptic of logic, for example. And for most of us, even most atheists I think, there was a time at least when the existence of God was a given.Don wrote:
As I see it the existence of God is self-evident, a basic belief (even properly basic) and the starting point for theology.
It may be the starting point of theology but it is not self-evident. It is a deduction from the questionable premise that everything has to have a creator.
Yes, there may well be other plausible explanations, but the one obvious (self evident) to people even of the early Enlightenment was that there is indeed, a Creator.
Many were just not willing to take the leap that from there, that Creator was Jesus, or even the God of the Bible (OT).
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Post #153
Gday all,
Re: the contradicting accounts of Easter Sunday -
No-one has ever succeeded in combining every verse from ALL the Gospel accounts into one consistent chronological narrative (without leaving out anything.)
Which is why PinSeeker did not cite any example of it being done.
Just like PinSeeker's claim :
"we have fragments of original manuscripts"
When I showed that we do NOT, the tune changed :
"sure, we don't actually have any originals, but that doesn't matter because..."
Then PinSeeker claimed :
"the manuscripts have remained unchanged throughout history"
But when I showed many many examples of such changes, the tune changed again :
"sure, there have been many changes, but they can all be explained away..."
As for the alleged four-Gospel reconciled account of Easter Sunday, all we can expect from PinSeeker will be :
"sure, no-one has actually managed to re-concile these wildly different account, but that can all be explained away because..."
But more importantly -
PinSeeker repeatedly and deliberately avoids the crucial point arching over all of this :
Even if we have the originals - that doesn't make the contents true.
Please PinSeeker - make your view clear to us -
Suppose we do have essentially the original New Testament in our hands today.
So what ?
Do you believe that means the contents of the story MUST be true ?
If so, WHY do you believe that ?
Why does that only apply to the NT then ?
We have the originals of the Book of Mormon - does that make the it true ?
We have the originals of ancient Egyptian myths carved in stone from about four thousand years ago, and even a few originals on papyrus - does that make them all true ?
We have the original MSS of the Lord Of The Rings - does that make it true ?
No.
Having an original document has nothing to do with whether the contents are true.
Even if you continue to dodge that critical issue PinSeeker, everyone else here can see the point and how it demolishes your belief in the NT.
Kapyong
Re: the contradicting accounts of Easter Sunday -
No they haven't.PinSeeker wrote: This is false; they can absolutely be reconciled, and have been.
No-one has ever succeeded in combining every verse from ALL the Gospel accounts into one consistent chronological narrative (without leaving out anything.)
Which is why PinSeeker did not cite any example of it being done.
Just like PinSeeker's claim :
"we have fragments of original manuscripts"
When I showed that we do NOT, the tune changed :
"sure, we don't actually have any originals, but that doesn't matter because..."
Then PinSeeker claimed :
"the manuscripts have remained unchanged throughout history"
But when I showed many many examples of such changes, the tune changed again :
"sure, there have been many changes, but they can all be explained away..."
As for the alleged four-Gospel reconciled account of Easter Sunday, all we can expect from PinSeeker will be :
"sure, no-one has actually managed to re-concile these wildly different account, but that can all be explained away because..."
But more importantly -
PinSeeker repeatedly and deliberately avoids the crucial point arching over all of this :
Even if we have the originals - that doesn't make the contents true.
Please PinSeeker - make your view clear to us -
Suppose we do have essentially the original New Testament in our hands today.
So what ?
Do you believe that means the contents of the story MUST be true ?
If so, WHY do you believe that ?
Why does that only apply to the NT then ?
We have the originals of the Book of Mormon - does that make the it true ?
We have the originals of ancient Egyptian myths carved in stone from about four thousand years ago, and even a few originals on papyrus - does that make them all true ?
We have the original MSS of the Lord Of The Rings - does that make it true ?
No.
Having an original document has nothing to do with whether the contents are true.
Even if you continue to dodge that critical issue PinSeeker, everyone else here can see the point and how it demolishes your belief in the NT.
Kapyong
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #155
You sure showed Kapyong, didn't you...wait...I'm looking at what I quoted from you...where's the rebuttal?PinSeeker wrote: I got you all in a tizzy, didn't I, Kapyong? Eh. Sorry, man, I didn't mean to make you so angry. The Name of Jesus does spark strong reactions, though. Grace and peace to you, man.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
benchwarmer
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2347 times
- Been thanked: 962 times
Post #156
I'm unclear how a clear rebuttal with hard evidence that shreds the original positions is considered a 'tizzy'. Is that the last gasp of a lost debate - declaring your opponent has gone off in a tizzy?PinSeeker wrote: I got you all in a tizzy, didn't I, Kapyong? Eh. Sorry, man, I didn't mean to make you so angry. The Name of Jesus does spark strong reactions, though. Grace and peace to you, man.
I realize it's uncomfortable to be shown your original assumptions are wrong, but failing to come back with a better rebuttal or honorably admitting you were wrong and simply labeling your opponent as emotional says "I lost, but won't admit it" to everyone reading along.
-
PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #157
Well, but they weren't. They weren't "assumptions," and they weren't "wrong."benchwarmer wrote: I realize it's uncomfortable to be shown your original assumptions are wrong...
Well then I would be lying. Which is... not cool.benchwarmer wrote:...but failing to come back with a better rebuttal or honorably admitting you were wrong and simply labeling your opponent as emotional says "I lost, but won't admit it" to everyone reading along.
G'day.
Last edited by PinSeeker on Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #158
Well that would be assuming that I actually tried to "show him." I merely called him out on his vitriol and... well, wild-eyed fanaticism, to be quite honest. No offense intended to anybody, but that's pretty much what it is.rikuoamero wrote: You sure showed Kapyong, didn't you...
Sharing the Gospel, and even the Gospel itself, is pretty harmless, you know? If you disagree, or think it's "illogical," or doesn't reconcile, or is foolishness, why does it become impossible to keep from becoming so angry and remain in cordial conversation mode? I mean, there is a very logical explanation, but we can leave that out of it.
None necessary in this thread.rikuoamero wrote: wait...I'm looking at what I quoted from you...where's the rebuttal?
Grace and peace to you and all.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #159
Moderator CommentPinSeeker wrote: I got you all in a tizzy, didn't I, Kapyong? Eh. Sorry, man, I didn't mean to make you so angry. The Name of Jesus does spark strong reactions, though. Grace and peace to you, man.
please address the content of the post, and not the writer of it. If you have something personal to say to the writer, use the PM system.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Post #160
Gday all,
Thanks for your comments and support
Sadly, PinSeeker has once again failed to answer me on that crucial point :
What does having many later copies have to do with the contents being true ?
I don't think PinSeeker will EVER answer that point, but we can predict he/she will continue to preach that we have such a large number of MSS, somehow implying this makes its true history.
While continuing to ignore the evidence against, such as :
But I see FTK has now repeated the exact same claim on another thread
Odd isn't it ?
Kapyong
Thanks for your comments and support
Sadly, PinSeeker has once again failed to answer me on that crucial point :
What does having many later copies have to do with the contents being true ?
I don't think PinSeeker will EVER answer that point, but we can predict he/she will continue to preach that we have such a large number of MSS, somehow implying this makes its true history.
While continuing to ignore the evidence against, such as :
- the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
- the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4,000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4,000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
- the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
- the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings vastly more true than the NT?
But I see FTK has now repeated the exact same claim on another thread
Odd isn't it ?
Kapyong
