Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-10-2004, 03:18 AM | #191 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2004, 07:36 AM | #192 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
Clutch and blt :notworthy
|
06-10-2004, 10:18 AM | #193 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
The errantist's position
The following is the errantist's position, as I understand it:
1. A surface anomaly is a proposition in the biblical text that appears, at the least, to be an actual error. 2. An error in the biblical text would mean that the Bible is not rightly called inerrant; it would, instead, be rightly called errant. 3. Since surface anomalies exist in the Bible it is likely that errors exist. 4. Most products of mankind, if not all, are errant. 5. Since the Bible is simply the product of mankind, it is likely that the Bible is errant. 6. Since it is more likely than not that the Bible is errant, the inerrantist assumes the burden of counterbalancing and or/overcoming this evidence and reason for biblical errancy. 7. One attempts to harmonize only that proposition which is actually erroneous. 8. Conversely, one never attempts to harmonize that proposition which is only seemingly erroneous. 9. The fact that inerrantists attempt to harmonize surface anomalies in the biblical text indisputably indicates that actual errors exist therein. I wanted to get to 10 but I don't remember any more. Oh well. Is this the errantist position? Do you want to add/modify/delete? Regards, BGic |
06-10-2004, 10:21 AM | #194 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
for JLK
Quote:
Regards, BGic |
|
06-10-2004, 10:41 AM | #195 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
|
not ready to move on
BGic, I am not interested in your "understanding" of the errantist position.
I am not interested in your "understanding" of the inerrantist position. I am interested in your position. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-10-2004, 10:50 AM | #196 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
Why address the issue directly when you can make a clever bedtime story and smash it
Quote:
Regards, BGic |
|
06-10-2004, 11:12 AM | #197 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
yet another invalid inference
Quote:
Regards, BGic |
|
06-10-2004, 11:18 AM | #198 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
|
Quote:
Far and away the most significant aspect of this list is its status as an evasion. Why not answer the questions and engage the points now made yet again above? More than anything else, this sudden confused list of statements seems tailored to change the topic after some posts which -- it cannot have escaped you -- seem to have struck your interlocutors as quite sufficiently clear expressions of their views. Ignoring those expressions, while trying to redact the opposing view into a form more tractable to criticism, is essentially an admission of no good answer. |
|
06-10-2004, 11:20 AM | #199 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
mystical intuition?
Quote:
Regards, BGic |
|
06-10-2004, 11:26 AM | #200 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
|
Interesting questions
Quote:
2. I think that corroboration can be proven. 3. I do not understand your last question. Please clarify. Regards, BGic |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|