FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2001, 01:13 PM   #91
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kosh:
I agree with Ish, but think it should be
taken one step further. Even if you come up
with a list of names who believe a certain
thing, that still doesn't allow me to ascertain
the validity of the beliefs. For every name
you can come up with on the Athiest side, you
can come up with on the Theist side. And
you don't win an argument like this based
on numbers... :-)

What I'd like to see is the evidence (in
whatever form) used to reach those opinions.
</font>
This isn't an atheist v. christian debate. Plenty of atheist writers accept the existence of Jesus without feeling insecure about their atheism.
 
Old 05-14-2001, 03:21 PM   #92
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by donnerkeil:
Why didn't [the Chinese] recognize the darkness? Because an eclipse seen in Israel would not have been seen in China. That's why.</font>
Mathew 27:45; "Now over the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land (emphasis added) unto the ninth hour."

Are you seriously suggesting China is not part of "over all the land?"

If so, what is meant in the Gospel by the term, "over all the land?"

Is the whole of China something other than land?

If the darkness was merely an eclipse limited physically to Isreal and the surrounding areas, why does the inerrant New Testament not say as much?

 
Old 05-14-2001, 03:34 PM   #93
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Mathew 27:45; "Now over the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land (emphasis added) unto the ninth hour."

Are you seriously suggesting China is not part of "over all the land?"

If so, what is meant in the Gospel by the term, "over all the land?"

Is the whole of China something other than land?

If the darkness was merely an eclipse limited physically to Isreal and the surrounding areas, why does the inerrant New Testament not say as much?
</font>
Whether inerrant or not, the New Testament is hardly making a claim that the entire world was plunged into darkness. Over all "the land" could mean a specific land area, such as Jerusalem, or Judea, or the Med.

On what basis to you assert that the text unambiguously refers to the entire earth? Other than being hyper literal?
 
Old 05-14-2001, 04:13 PM   #94
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Mathew 27:45; "Now over the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land (emphasis added) unto the ninth hour."

Are you seriously suggesting China is not part of "over all the land?"

If so, what is meant in the Gospel by the term, "over all the land?"

Is the whole of China something other than land?

If the darkness was merely an eclipse limited physically to Isreal and the surrounding areas, why does the inerrant New Testament not say as much?
</font>
Luke 23:44-45
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun. Then the veil of the temple was torn down the middle.
</font>
Surely you knew this rbochnermd. As for the comment "over all the land".... what even makes you presume that the author was speaking about anything other than Israel?

For instance: "Wow, I saw that eclipse and everything went dark." Now, did everything really go dark, or just the things that I was capable of seeing? I think, being the MD you claim you are, you should be able to figure this out without too much difficulty.


[This message has been edited by donnerkeil (edited May 14, 2001).]
 
Old 05-14-2001, 05:12 PM   #95
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

For what it's worth, I think Doherty's complaints about Trafford's approach and tone are legitimate. It would be much more interesting if Trafford would engage in discussion over substance and use his criticisms regarding method as and when relevant.

BTW, question for the Moderators. Is there some way to split this thread in two, one for feedback and questions to Doherty and Trafford, the other for the parallel debate among the spectators? As it stands, the thread is serving neither purpose well.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 14, 2001).]
 
Old 05-14-2001, 06:50 PM   #96
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Earl Doherty: …What we can do with more security is establish patterns and overall features across the entire record…

ChristianSkeptic: One of the criteria to evaluate the strength of an argument from silence is to ask how likely is it that the writer would mention this event in this document?

It is precisely when you take the NT as a whole and take notice of “establish patterns and overall feature across the entire record” that your argument from silence becomes obviously untenable .

Taken, as a whole there is a five-fold division of the NT.

1). The first four books are historical and give us the history of redemption. It is Christ manifested in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. The first four books give you his life, death and resurrection.

2). The book of Acts is a book of proclamation of what was manifested in the first four.

3). The next thirteen books tell us what it all means. They are theological and explain such topics as justification, sanctification and calling.

4). The next eight books are of application. These are books of practicality. Where the rubber meets the road. Here you will find the books of Peter (who lost his courage, but not his faith) and James (the role of deeds).

5). Revelation is a book of expectation centered on the return of Christ.

Given the clear intent of the authors of these books, we do not expect a detailed description of the resurrection story in those books that follow the first four; although there are elusions. For example, Paul’s formula in 1 Corinthians (I think) implies an empty tomb and I think 1 Peter assert that they were “eye witnesses to Jesus.”



[This message has been edited by ChristianSkeptic (edited May 14, 2001).]
 
Old 05-14-2001, 09:19 PM   #97
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">JubalH:
BTW, question for the Moderators. Is there some way to split this thread in two, one for feedback and questions to Doherty and Trafford, the other for the parallel debate among the spectators? As it stands, the thread is serving neither purpose well.</font>
Ha! I already tried this with my "Comments on the Comments on the Jesus Debate" thread. It didn't go over so well. I guess the goofy name didn't help much. But I like that idea!

Ish
 
Old 05-14-2001, 09:21 PM   #98
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by donnerkeil:
...As for the comment "over all the land".... what even makes you presume that the author was speaking about anything other than Israel?</font>
The term "over all the land" absent specified exclusions includes "over all the land" unless the phrase "over all the land" means something other than "over all the land;" hence the use of the term "over all the land" by the authors meant "over all the land" or the authors would have said something other than "over all the land."

Or perhaps the Bible is not inerrant.

There is no direct or implied exclusion in the explicit statement "over all the land" for the Chinese, Eskimos, Aborigines, or MD's.

Why should anyone presume otherwise?

 
Old 05-14-2001, 10:14 PM   #99
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I can only speak for myself here, but did want to say this.

I am going to stop reading this thread. It is so hopelessly not on topic that I do not believe that replying to questions here would be of any value to anyone.

Therefore, if anyone has any questions specifically for me, I would request that you please offer it on a new thread, and mention "Nomad" or something in the title so that I will know you want me to read it. Maybe we can do this under a group of headings to keep from getting completely unmanageable. I have noticed that Layman has already done this with a couple of Earl's arguments, and would not mind having the same thing for questions directed at me (assuming that there are any of course).

I hope that this will solve the structural problems that have made this particular thread unmanageable (in my opinion).

So, I apologize. I am not trying to be rude, but I do not think that this specific thread can serve its original purpose. At the same time, if there are questions from the readers, I do want to address them. I hope that this helps.

Thank you for your understanding.

Brian (Nomad)
 
Old 05-15-2001, 12:53 AM   #100
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Now that the debate has finally taken off in earnest, I see no further need for this particular thread. I have asked Nomad a question re. one of his point in a separate thread.

Would it be possible for the administrators to set up a new Forum dedicated to commenting the Formal Debate forum? We could then collect all relevant threads there without swamping the BC&A forum.

fG
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.