Biblical Inerrancy

2456715

Comments

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Take the example of the debate over circumcision within the early church

    Firstly, Paul is an apostolic human writer; his authority derives from this. To be an apostle meant that whatever he wrote that got in the Bible carries as much authority as anything else in there. Now with that premise, he builds a NT concept of circumcision from the OT. (Circumcise your hearts). If you actually understood that you might get a glimmer of what he is actually on about.

    However, he also wrote that the natural man cannot understand the things of God, they are foolishness to that person.

    As an unbeliever, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth or the things of God. 1 Cor 2:14.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Take the example of the debate over circumcision within the early church

    Firstly, Paul is an apostolic human writer; his authority derives from this. To be an apostle meant that whatever he wrote that got in the Bible carries as much authority as anything else in there. Now with that premise, he builds a NT concept of circumcision from the OT.

    But this would not have been of any use to the Council of Jerusalem, since nothing from the Book of Acts would have been available to them, what with it not having been written yet, including their own decision about circumcision. It's not like they could base their decision on scripture that hadn't been written yet, but they were still able to break with the scripture that was available to them for non-scriptural reasons.

    It should also be noted that despite regarding it as unnecessary, Paul wasn't an anti-circumcision hardliner.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    What's interesting to me is that so much ink is spilled (pixels are pixilated?) arguing in favor of a concept of Christian scripture that is pretty soundly rejected by what is now regarded as Christian scripture. Take the example of the debate over circumcision within the early church. Scripture as it existed at the time was pretty clear on the fact that if you were male and wanted to enter into a covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob you had to be circumcised like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Paul and the others from the anti-circumcision faction couldn't point at the Second Testament because it hadn't been written yet. Instead they argued that there was something underlying Christianity other than strict adherence to written law. Ultimately their anti-scriptural position was adopted (and, ironically, eventually written down to be adopted as scripture). This would seem to argue that strict adherence to the rules set down in scripture is not an over-riding, underlying tenet of Christian scripture.

    Fascinating angle. Thanks for this.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Take the example of the debate over circumcision within the early church

    Firstly, Paul is an apostolic human writer; his authority derives from this. To be an apostle meant that whatever he wrote that got in the Bible carries as much authority as anything else in there. Now with that premise, he builds a NT concept of circumcision from the OT.

    But this would not have been of any use to the Council of Jerusalem, since nothing from the Book of Acts would have been available to them, what with it not having been written yet, including their own decision about circumcision. It's not like they could base their decision on scripture that hadn't been written yet, but they were still able to break with the scripture that was available to them for non-scriptural reasons.

    It should also be noted that despite regarding it as unnecessary, Paul wasn't an anti-circumcision hardliner.

    When the apostles were alive,THEY were the authority. When they died, we know their teaching by their writings...scripture. As I say, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth as an unbeliever.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    When the apostles were alive,THEY were the authority. When they died, we know their teaching by their writings...scripture. As I say, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth as an unbeliever.
    So, an unbeliever cannot grasp spiritual truth, but someone must grasp spiritual truth to become a believer...somewhere, in a parallel universe, there is a bad Star Trek script revolving around this.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    When the apostles were alive,THEY were the authority. When they died, we know their teaching by their writings...scripture. As I say, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth as an unbeliever.
    So, an unbeliever cannot grasp spiritual truth, but someone must grasp spiritual truth to become a believer...somewhere, in a parallel universe, there is a bad Star Trek script revolving around this.
    It is only when God opens someone’s eyes spiritually that they can respond. At the judgement every person born will be shown those opportunities and those who have rejected them? ..weeping and gnashing I’m afraid.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It's only when God opens someone’s eyes spiritually that they can praise Him for murdering rape victims by proxy.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's only when God opens someone’s eyes spiritually that they can praise Him for murdering rape victims by proxy.

    Yep. And everyone who thinks rape victims shouldn't be stoned, and whole cities put to the sword - eternal rotisserie

    Is this God or IS?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    When the apostles were alive, THEY were the authority.

    Well, authorities. The fact that they had to have the Council of Jerusalem at all indicates that they weren't all unified about the question of Gentile circumcision.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    When the apostles were alive,THEY were the authority. When they died, we know their teaching by their writings...scripture. As I say, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth as an unbeliever.
    So, an unbeliever cannot grasp spiritual truth, but someone must grasp spiritual truth to become a believer...somewhere, in a parallel universe, there is a bad Star Trek script revolving around this.
    It is only when God opens someone’s eyes spiritually that they can respond. At the judgement every person born will be shown those opportunities and those who have rejected them? ..weeping and gnashing I’m afraid.
    So, in other words, God is a random bastard who explicitly chooses who to let burn in the fires of Hell.
    FYI, one cannot infinitely maintain a baked good and consume it as well. Works for logic, try though you might to ignore it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ISTM, the reasonable approach for a believer is that God's message is filtered through the experiences of his believers. The need for all of it to be true just isn't a tenable one. Not with the God that the majority of Christians believe in. If one is to lower expectations of his power, knowledge and/or love for humanity, then the Bible works. Otherwise, not so much.
    The loving, all-knowing, all powerful God is at direct odds with the rolling dumpster fire that is the Bible as a coherent, perfect tome.

    The Bible is not logically consistent It should not be read literally, but the way that it has been read and translated over the centuries is, to me, just as important as the text itself and whatever our enlightened way of reading it is today. We just can't make the words mean something different than they plainly did at the time and even if the original meaning has been misinterpreted we can't just erase thousands of years of reading it a certain way.

    However, I don't think you can just say that parts of Scripture are wrong (except in a scientific, historically factual sense). I think to be a Christian you have to basically lose your sanity and rationality a little bit. You have to believe in the human rights and notions of equality that were not seen by many as part of Christianity (ok, some human rights and equality have been in there, but not as many as we believe in today and not in the same way we believe in them today) while also believing that every little letter of Scripture - even the typos - and for me every single letter of all the Tradition, Liturgy, and Doctrine that have developed alongside Scripture over the centuries - are part of a wholly good Truth from a wholly good God. This is not supposed to make any sense. It is supposed to make you want to pull out your hair. It runs the danger of making you susceptible to an irrationalism that bleeds into Fascism (when you guess incorrectly at which parts of Scripture you are supposed to both believe and not believe - the truth is, you have to not believe all of it in at least some sense). Doing anything else basically would lead me to become an atheist. But maybe I am an atheist already!

    All that said, I respect people who just set aside parts of Scripture, or who bend over backwards to give Scripture a modern politically correct meaning, and acknowledge that their minds probably work differently than mine. I'm not so sure that my mind is working that well. :smile:
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ISTM, the reasonable approach for a believer is that God's message is filtered through the experiences of his believers. The need for all of it to be true just isn't a tenable one. Not with the God that the majority of Christians believe in. If one is to lower expectations of his power, knowledge and/or love for humanity, then the Bible works. Otherwise, not so much.
    The loving, all-knowing, all powerful God is at direct odds with the rolling dumpster fire that is the Bible as a coherent, perfect tome.

    The Bible is not logically consistent It should not be read literally, but the way that it has been read and translated over the centuries is, to me, just as important as the text itself and whatever our enlightened way of reading it is today. We just can't make the words mean something different than they plainly did at the time and even if the original meaning has been misinterpreted we can't just erase thousands of years of reading it a certain way.
    In my POV, one should decides what one believes at its core. And one should understand how humans work. So, if one posits an all-powerful, all-knowing loving being, there are parts of the bible that do not work. Some work in no way to understanding God. They do work in understanding how people interpret and how they present themselves.
    Handwaving and "God, what's he like?" just don't cut it.
    We can understand why Aristotle though spontaneous generation was a thing and how his observation got some things correct, some things wrong and some in-between. This does not diminish his importance and I think that is a key issue with fundamentalist views of the bible. The idea that if part is flawed , all must be flawed.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The Bible is not logically consistent It should not be read literally
    You just demonstrated the kind of conundrum anybody who adopts that view has to deal with. However, fundamentally, the question is really if the God of the Bible is an objective reality. One cannot know this without an ‘encounter’ which usually escapes a closed mind. One way to ensure a closed mind is to paint oneself into a corner with definitive conclusions that he has behaved immorally with regard to the current Zeitgeist or liberal politics. In effect, when one does that, one is presenting an emotional argument purporting to masquerade as objective truth....’He can’t exist he ordered genocide’..and that is what we see in the strident voices displayed here.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Oh right. Objection to mass murder is mere "emotional argument". It's just the zeitgeist or liberal politics.

    MPaul; the logical conclusion of that is that we're wrong to consider mass murder inherently evil. Your conclusion is that genocide is not actually a bad thing.

    You scare me. Is this how non-psychopaths can take on the utter lack of empathy that characterises the true psychopath? Is this how religion can make good people do bad things?

    Seems like it.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    we're wrong to consider mass murder inherently evil

    No, what you are wrong about is your definition of mass murder.

    The judgements of God are said in scripture to be righteous and motivated by loving kindness. Jer 9:24. You continually apply the standards by which we should treat each other, to God, and the way he treats humanity. Besides being myopic, and yes, emotion based, this is a category error.

    I agree that the holocaust was genocide and reprehensible. I do not agree that the conquest of Canaan with all its backstory, is in any way analogous to that. If you say, what’s the difference, in both scenarios people died, then, while that is true, it is about all the 2 have in common.

    In the conquest of Canaan, God used Israel to judge a situation that could not be rectified otherwise. These Canaanites were genetically corrupted. The Anakim were hybrid humans. Joshua only totally destroyed people groups very selectively when told to. God signalled the intention 400 years before it occurred. If repentance had occurred God would have spared them as he would have spared Sodom. He also would have spared Judah the Babylonian invasion hadthey repented.

    ‘Shall not the judge of all the earth do justly?’
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 11
    MPaul wrote: »
    we're wrong to consider mass murder inherently evil

    No, what you are wrong about is your definition of mass murder.

    The judgements of God are said in scripture to be righteous and motivated by loving kindness. Jer 9:24. You continually apply the standards by which we should treat each other, to God, and the way he treats humanity. Besides being myopic, and yes, emotion based, this is a category error.

    I agree that the holocaust was genocide and reprehensible. I do not agree that the conquest of Canaan with all its backstory, is in any way analogous to that. If you say, what’s the difference, in both scenarios people died, then, while that is true, it is about all the 2 have in common.

    In the conquest of Canaan, God used Israel to judge a situation that could not be rectified otherwise. These Canaanites were genetically corrupted. The Anakim were hybrid humans. Joshua only totally destroyed people groups very selectively when told to. God signalled the intention 400 years before it occurred. If repentance had occurred God would have spared them as he would have spared Sodom. He also would have spared Judah the Babylonian invasion hadthey repented.

    ‘Shall not the judge of all the earth do justly?’

    Going house to house killing man, woman, child, babe in arms. Just? Right?

    Disgusting. Absolutely morally bankrupt.

    Frankly, "genetically corrupted" sounds exactly like Hitler's justification for his actions.

    I cannot believe anyone with a functioning conscience could be saying this.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    I agree that the holocaust was genocide and reprehensible. I do not agree that the conquest of Canaan with all its backstory, is in any way analogous to that. If you say, what’s the difference, in both scenarios people died, then, while that is true, it is about all the 2 have in common.

    In the conquest of Canaan, God used Israel to judge a situation that could not be rectified otherwise. These Canaanites were genetically corrupted. The Anakim were hybrid humans. . . . If repentance had occurred God would have spared them as he would have spared Sodom.

    So one of those events involved ruthlessly slaughtering the corrupt and racially inferior untermenschen, while the other involved Nazis. You make a compelling case.

    What's interesting is the knots people will tie scripture in when trying to read it "literally". The Bible does not mention genetics, or have much commentary about the biological fitness of the Canaanites. That's an invention inserted by people like @MPaul who try to fit God's morality with human norms, which sort of contradicts his earlier argument that God is beyond human concepts of good and evil so if He wants to organize a little ethnic cleansing that sort of thing is, by definition, "good".

    And I know I'm going to regret asking this, but how does someone "repent" of their genetics?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Didn't you know?! God heals! Gayz!!! Down's!!!! All you gots to do is pray harder.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The Bible does not mention genetics, or have much commentary about the biological fitness of the Canaanites
    I agree that little direct information is given but there is enough. Gen 6 indicates the genetic corruption that led to the flood judgement. The Bene Elohim, sons of God are fallen angels. Angels are known to take human form.

    Where they procreate with human women you get the hybrid races and the nihilism that were unredeemable. Some suggest this is impossible based on Jesus words that they do not marry. He did not suggest they could not proceate with humanity, just that marriage is a natural state for humanity.

    Noah,was perfect in his generations ie free from such corruption and thus qualified in that sense to begin a new line of humanity (though one similarly in a fallen adamic state) in the post diluvian world. This interpretation is consistent with both Peter and Jude in the NT. They refer to the angels that sinned and the ones that left their proper abode (okaterion).

    Now in the conquest of Canaan, it is clear from the presence of the sons of Anak that Satanic angels had once again corrupted human seed. Satan had had 400 years to lay down a minefield to frustrate God’s covenant promises. Hence the judgement of Canaan was necessary to preserve humanity.

    If you are actually unfamiliar with scripture in any but a superficial sense, or if you choose to dismiss it as error ridden, then of course you will reach wrong conclusions.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible does not mention genetics, or have much commentary about the biological fitness of the Canaanites
    I agree that little direct information is given but there is enough. Gen 6 indicates the genetic corruption that led to the flood judgement. The Bene Elohim, sons of God are fallen angels. Angels are known to take human form.

    Where they procreate with human women you get the hybrid races and the nihilism that were unredeemable. Some suggest this is impossible based on Jesus words that they do not marry. He did not suggest they could not proceate with humanity, just that marriage is a natural state for humanity.

    Noah,was perfect in his generations ie free from such corruption and thus qualified in that sense to begin a new line of humanity (though one similarly in a fallen adamic state) in the post diluvian world. This interpretation is consistent with both Peter and Jude in the NT. They refer to the angels that sinned and the ones that left their proper abode (okaterion).

    Now in the conquest of Canaan, it is clear from the presence of the sons of Anak that Satanic angels had once again corrupted human seed. Satan had had 400 years to lay down a minefield to frustrate God’s covenant promises. Hence the judgement of Canaan was necessary to preserve humanity.

    If you are actually unfamiliar with scripture in any but a superficial sense, or if you choose to dismiss it as error ridden, then of course you will reach wrong conclusions.

    Ah. They looked like cute human babies but they were really Tieflings ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiefling ) and deserved to be slaughtered.

    Do you really believe this drivel?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible does not mention genetics, or have much commentary about the biological fitness of the Canaanites
    I agree that little direct information is given but there is enough. Gen 6 indicates the genetic corruption that led to the flood judgement.

    No it doesn't. Genesis 6 indicates that wickedness (רָעַת) of thought (יֵצֶר) and intention (מַחְשְׁבֹת) were the reasons God decided to kill everyone (with eight exceptions). God's motives as given in scripture have nothing to do with genetics or ancestry.

    One of the things that still amazes me no matter how often I see it is the way people who claim to have a high reverence for scripture will just insert their own thoughts into it, revising it to say what they think it should have said, if only God had consulted them.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Where they procreate with human women you get the hybrid races and the nihilism that were unredeemable.

    Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

    I'm also amused about how confidently various people who claim to regard God as omnipotent and inscrutable put limits around His abilities, in this case whether or not God is capable of redeeming someone (or a whole lineage of someones).
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Genesis 6 indicates that wickedness (רָעַת) of thought (יֵצֶר) and intention (מַחְשְׁבֹת) were the reasons God decided to kill everyone (with eight exceptions). God's motives as given in scripture have nothing to do with genetics or ancestry
    The question is the reason for that. Since God saw no means of redemption going forward you have to ask why. Nephilim..ancient version of AI ...corrupted human genome is what led to that wickedness. The flood was the only time the whole of Homo sapiens was corrupted and so ..Noah.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Do you really believe this drivel
    Yes. The Bible is God’s communication to us.
  • Holy Crazy, Batshitman!
  • MPaul wrote: »
    If you are actually unfamiliar with scripture in any but a superficial sense, or if you choose to dismiss it as error ridden, then of course you will reach wrong conclusions.
    This line of “argument,” which seems awfully like an ad hominem response, does nothing to bolster the strength of your argument or of your credibility.

    Your interpretation of Scripture—and please do not fool yourself into thinking it is not an interpretation—is highly problematic. Your attempts to defend that interpretation demonstrate that more and more clearly.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Do you really believe this drivel
    Yes. The Bible is God’s communication to us.
    And it’s pretty clear to me that you’ve misinterpreted that communication in some significant ways.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    like an ad hominem response
    So..you accuse me of an ad hominem response. How? I apologise if this is so. The issue under discussion is indeed scriptural interpretation. But it is deeper as well. It is scripture’s coherence; it is scripture’s integrity.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    like an ad hominem response
    So..you accuse me of an ad hominem response. How? I apologise if this is so. The issue under discussion is indeed scriptural interpretation. But it is deeper as well. It is scripture’s coherence; it is scripture’s integrity.
    It really isn't. It is your interpretation of what that integrity is. And your view quite frankly, fails any test of reason or logic, even an internally consistent one.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    like an ad hominem response
    So..you accuse me of an ad hominem response. How? I apologise if this is so. The issue under discussion is indeed scriptural interpretation. But it is deeper as well. It is scripture’s coherence; it is scripture’s integrity.

    You're claiming that people disagree with you because they're too unbelieving/close minded/liberal. You're not engaging with the concerns raised except by constructing elaborate extra-Biblical houses of cards to attempt to defend the indefensible.
  • Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself, (link

    Suggested examples of ad hominem are:
    5 January - in response to me:
    The bias is betrayed by the words ‘genocide’ and ‘wrong.’ Your post illustrates my former point which is that you cannot understand scripture if you see it in the light of political baggage.
    ... It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it,

    From January 10
    The agenda assumed in this is that liberalism has the right to define all the terms eg genocide.

    From January 11
    If you actually understood that you might get a glimmer of what he is actually on about.
    ....
    As an unbeliever, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth or the things of God. 1 Cor 2:14.

    From this post
    As I say, you have no chance of grasping spiritual truth as an unbeliever.

    From this post
    It is only when God opens someone’s eyes spiritually that they can respond.

    From this post
    ... One cannot know this without an ‘encounter’ which usually escapes a closed mind. One way to ensure a closed mind is to paint oneself into a corner with definitive conclusions that he has behaved immorally with regard to the current Zeitgeist or liberal politics. In effect, when one does that, one is presenting an emotional argument purporting to masquerade as objective truth. ...

    And from this post
    If you are actually unfamiliar with scripture in any but a superficial sense, or if you choose to dismiss it as error ridden, then of course you will reach wrong conclusions.

    Those posts say that the reason other posters on this thread do not agree with you are because they:
    • are biased;
    • have political baggage;
    • put our sense of right above that of God;
    • have a liberal agenda;
    • do not understand;
    • are not [true] believers;
    • have not had their eyes opened spiritually by God;
    • have closed eyes;
    • have bought into the Zeitgeist or liberal politics;
    • are unfamiliar with scripture
    • choose to dismiss scripture as error ridden

    It's very difficult to discuss this sensibly when accused of
    presenting an emotional argument purporting to masquerade as objective truth
    and faced with someone who is equally presenting their own arguments that purport to be objective truth, based on a different interpretation and a different reading of the same texts.

    You also haven't answered my question below:
    If you do not like the use of the word genocide to describe the killing of the Amorites and the other tribes destroyed by Joshua how else would you describe those actions?

    The other phrase you picked up on was that the order of creation of the universe in the Bible is now known to be in the wrong order scientifically. If science can describe the order of creation of the universe and that does not match the order as described in Genesis 1:1, what word is acceptable to use here?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Duh really? Ad hominem to me is the responses I have refused to react personally to.

  • Can you show me where I have attacked you personally on this thread?
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Duh really? Ad hominem to me is the responses I have refused to react personally to.

    Words mean things. Re-defining them because you don't like the implications takes us into Alice in Wonderland territory.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    like an ad hominem response
    So..you accuse me of an ad hominem response. How?
    See the responses of @Arethosemyfeet and particularly of @Curiosity killed.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Duh really? Ad hominem to me is the responses I have refused to react personally to.
    Then perhaps you should read Curiosity killed’s post again to learn what ad hominem means.

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending MPaul's argument in general, but I do find the notion of ad hominem to be of limited value in religious discussion. The vast majority of religious understanding relies on having had a revelation that is not universally available. To assert that the novitiate does not understand until having attained enlightenment, or that Saul needed a Damascus road experience to become the Apostle to the Gentiles, or any of a thousand other examples, is simply to say that religious truth is a gift that depends very heavily on experience that not everyone has had. Whether MPaul is correct when he invokes that for the purposes of this discussion is a legitimate query, but the fact that doing so focuses on the man instead of the facts under discussion is less than dispositive in this context. Or so ISTM.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 12
    tclune wrote: »
    I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending MPaul's argument in general, but I do find the notion of ad hominem to be of limited value in religious discussion. The vast majority of religious understanding relies on having had a revelation that is not universally available. To assert that the novitiate does not understand until having attained enlightenment, or that Saul needed a Damascus road experience to become the Apostle to the Gentiles, or any of a thousand other examples, is simply to say that religious truth is a gift that depends very heavily on experience that not everyone has had. Whether MPaul is correct when he invokes that for the purposes of this discussion is a legitimate query, but the fact that doing so focuses on the man instead of the facts under discussion is less than dispositive in this context. Or so ISTM.
    To believe, perhaps.* to understand, not even close.

    *And seriously, you would posit that every believer of every religion has had a road to Damascus event? That was the representation of the conversion of a zealot persecutor, not a dawning of understanding. And this is just the first test this idea fails.
  • "Your position is wrong because you are stupid" is ad hominem. "Your position is wrong because you are a liberal" is bulverism.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 12
    You are an idiot and Your argument is an idiot are two, different things though they mightn't always feel that way.
  • "Your argument is an idiot" is a case of category error. Arguments can't be idiots. "Idiot" is a word meaning a person who has certain features. Arguments aren't people. They can however be idiotic.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    "Your argument is an idiot" is a case of category error. Arguments can't be idiots. "Idiot" is a word meaning a person who has certain features. Arguments aren't people. They can however be idiotic.
    It is saying your argument is idiotic. It is not a category error, but intentionally structured to be more pointed.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Genesis 6 indicates that wickedness (רָעַת) of thought (יֵצֶר) and intention (מַחְשְׁבֹת) were the reasons God decided to kill everyone (with eight exceptions). God's motives as given in scripture have nothing to do with genetics or ancestry
    The question is the reason for that.

    No it's not. The reason is given as God's regret over human wickedness in the form of thought and intention. That's what scripture says. You only need to make up other reasons if you think the reason given in scripture is wrong or inadequate.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Since God saw no means of redemption going forward you have to ask why.

    Again, that's something you claim, not anything actually from scripture. There is nothing in the actual text about the redeemability or unredeemability of anyone in chapter 6 of Genesis. We're told that God is "regretted" (יִּנָּחֶם), or "repented" in some translations, the creation of humans because of this wickedness, but there's nothing about whether or not there were any "means of redemption". There was no actual redemption, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the means weren't available, jut that God chose to do otherwise. Again, I'm often amazed at how those who claim that "The [ Protestant ] Bible is God’s communication to us" also seem to think that God's communication left out some important bits and that they're the ones to add them back in. So much for scripture as "an integrated message system"! It's obviously not that integrated if it has all these missing pieces.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible does not mention genetics, or have much commentary about the biological fitness of the Canaanites
    I agree that little direct information is given but there is enough. Gen 6 indicates the genetic corruption that led to the flood judgement. The Bene Elohim, sons of God are fallen angels. Angels are known to take human form.

    Where they procreate with human women you get the hybrid races and the nihilism that were unredeemable. Some suggest this is impossible based on Jesus words that they do not marry. He did not suggest they could not proceate with humanity, just that marriage is a natural state for humanity.

    Noah,was perfect in his generations ie free from such corruption and thus qualified in that sense to begin a new line of humanity (though one similarly in a fallen adamic state) in the post diluvian world. This interpretation is consistent with both Peter and Jude in the NT. They refer to the angels that sinned and the ones that left their proper abode (okaterion).

    Now in the conquest of Canaan, it is clear from the presence of the sons of Anak that Satanic angels had once again corrupted human seed. Satan had had 400 years to lay down a minefield to frustrate God’s covenant promises. Hence the judgement of Canaan was necessary to preserve humanity.

    If you are actually unfamiliar with scripture in any but a superficial sense, or if you choose to dismiss it as error ridden, then of course you will reach wrong conclusions.

    Ah. They looked like cute human babies but they were really Tieflings ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiefling ) and deserved to be slaughtered.

    Do you really believe this drivel?

    The poor guy HAS to. He's up an evolutionary cul-de-sac with at least 80% of theists. Been there. But the benefit in actual 'morality' outweighs that opportunity cost in rationality.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Since God saw no means of redemption going forward you have to ask why.

    Croesus: Again, that's something you claim, not anything actually from scripture

    The fact that you cannot see something in text because you demand direct reference, is an issue of what you demand from the text so as to accept meaning. Then that becomes an issue of how You and I see quite differently what is in there. IOW, how what is in there is understood or whether what one can see in there is actually there either directly or by inference. Either way, it becomes a linguistic kind of issue.

    The ‘angel view’ of Gen 6, is a common view among Bible expositors. It is rejected by some obviously but it is compelling on the weight of evidence to me. It involves a degree of inference certainly and it is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible eg the subsequent presence of giants on the earth and it makes a lot of sense in explaining the reasons that the flood judgement came. It is also consistent with writings of both Peter and Jude in the NT.

    You are by your own testimony elsewhere, a non Christian and probably I am casting pearls before swine here. This is obviously the case with other posters. As I stated above, the natural man finds the things of God to be foolish as Paul says. However, others may read these things and consider their lives. I was certainly an unbeliever once and also a mocker as many are..but people can change.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    "Your argument is an idiot" is a case of category error. Arguments can't be idiots. "Idiot" is a word meaning a person who has certain features. Arguments aren't people. They can however be idiotic.
    It is saying your argument is idiotic. It is not a category error, but intentionally structured to be more pointed.

    Stupid usage is not pointed usage it's just stupid usage.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    The fact that you cannot see something in text because you demand direct reference, is an issue of what you demand from the text so as to accept meaning. Then that becomes an issue of how You and I see quite differently what is in there. IOW, how what is in there is understood or whether what one can see in there is actually there either directly or by inference. Either way, it becomes a linguistic kind of issue.

    Surely if it's "by inference" then it's not there. It's implied by what is there, but you are doing interpretive work to get it.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The fact that you cannot see something in text because you demand direct reference, is an issue of what you demand from the text so as to accept meaning. Then that becomes an issue of how You and I see quite differently what is in there. IOW, how what is in there is understood or whether what one can see in there is actually there either directly or by inference. Either way, it becomes a linguistic kind of issue.

    Surely if it's "by inference" then it's not there. It's implied by what is there, but you are doing interpretive work to get it.
    Indeed. We all have an interpretive filter. We approach the word with a sincere heart and ask The Holy Spirit to enlighten our hearts.
    Eph1:18.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Since God saw no means of redemption going forward you have to ask why.

    Croesus: Again, that's something you claim, not anything actually from scripture

    The fact that you cannot see something in text because you demand direct reference, is an issue of what you demand from the text so as to accept meaning. Then that becomes an issue of how You and I see quite differently what is in there. IOW, how what is in there is understood or whether what one can see in there is actually there either directly or by inference. Either way, it becomes a linguistic kind of issue.

    The ‘angel view’ of Gen 6, is a common view among Bible expositors. It is rejected by some obviously but it is compelling on the weight of evidence to me. It involves a degree of inference certainly and it is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible eg the subsequent presence of giants on the earth and it makes a lot of sense in explaining the reasons that the flood judgement came. It is also consistent with writings of both Peter and Jude in the NT.

    You are by your own testimony elsewhere, a non Christian and probably I am casting pearls before swine here. This is obviously the case with other posters. As I stated above, the natural man finds the things of God to be foolish as Paul says. However, others may read these things and consider their lives. I was certainly an unbeliever once and also a mocker as many are..but people can change.

    That's Bulverism too. I'm a Christian and I fully agree with Crœsos.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    That's Bulverism too. I'm a Christian and
    Bulverism? I am the main recipient of it here but it is not a helpful accusation as it assumes truth can discovered by reason and logic. In fact, it is never so. These things are merely linguistic weapons. We are on similarly entrenched sides of a discussion and you surely assume that you are correct and I need convincing and vice versa.. and you are, by your own confession, decidedly a sceptic.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    "Your argument is an idiot" is a case of category error. Arguments can't be idiots. "Idiot" is a word meaning a person who has certain features. Arguments aren't people. They can however be idiotic.
    It is saying your argument is idiotic. It is not a category error, but intentionally structured to be more pointed.

    Stupid usage is not pointed usage it's just stupid usage.
    I could comment on the perspicacity of the original incorrect assumption, but whatevs, bro.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    That's Bulverism too. I'm a Christian and
    Bulverism? I am the main recipient of it here but it is not a helpful accusation as it assumes truth can discovered by reason and logic. In fact, it is never so.
    A reasonable intelligent being could figure out better ways to manage his creations. Instead, you have presented an explanation that is worthy of L. Ron Hubbard just after he read Mien Kampf.

  • Saying "truth cannot be discovered by reason and logic" is applying reason and logic (albeit poorly). Denying reason and logic is impossible to do without contradicting oneself and admitting one cannot say anything is true.
Sign In or Register to comment.