Johnny Skeptic

But do you trust science, or God? Isn't it true that you would not become an evolutionist even if 99.99% of biologists were evolutionists? Please answer the question. I predict that you won't because you would embarrass yourself if your answer was "yes." Who do you trust more, scientists, or God? Surely your answer would be "God." Typical of presuppositionalists and inerrantists, you assume your conclusions before you have debates. That is dishonest. I do not assume my conclusions no matter what like you do. I am willing to change my mind if certain kinds of information become available.

In the NIV, Romans 3:3-4 say "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'"

Surely you know those verses. Now please, be honest and admit that those verses are proof that you are not willing to change your mind about evolution regardless of how many scientists are evolutionists. Are you not aware that predipositionalism and inerranacy compel adherents to reject any information that disagrees with the Bible regardless of what the information is. Regarding Genesis, as with every other Bible topic, you have already assumed your conclusions BEFORE you start debates. How are your beliefs in presuppositionaliam and inerrancy any different than a programmed computer that is not able to change its mind?

The Bible most certainly was not inspired by any God. It could easily have been written in ways that would have encouraged acceptance instead of inviting dissent.

Sauron

Translation: The majority of posters know full well your debate 'style', and aren't letting you get by with anything. On the other hand Jubal is new around here, and doesn't have first hand experience watching you equivocate.

JLK

Well, OK. But don't expect this classic merrill technique of avoidance of all previous points to persuade anyone but merrill fans.

Did I mention that - unlike the prepositional phrase describing the birds - the sun, moon and stars are actually in the firmament, in v.14? (Which is why Aristotle's crystalline spheres and their contents were acceptable and not seen as some sort of colossal challenge to Genesis.)
???? Is this unclear? Just because there is no single Hebrew word for universe/nature as the 21st century conceives of it does not mean the euphemism hashamayim v'et haaretz means universe/nature as the 21st century conceives of it -- as merrill proclaims "obvious".

If lee had justification for why the euphemism could not simply mean "everything" in the sense of everything one could possibly encounter under heaven's raqia' and within the circle of the earth, which is everything that was created, he would present it.

Johnny Skeptic

And presuppositionalism, inerrancy, and divine inspiration of the originals are not axes to grind??????????????? Those ARE the actual bases of ALL of your arguments regarding ALL topics, right, Lee? You have assumed your conclusions BEFORE you start debates, right, Lee? Let every man, including every scientist, be a liar, but let God be true (reference Romans 3:3-4), right Lee? [What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."]

Regarding you "don't have time to fuss with people who cannot possibly acknowledge any point made by the other side," you are even more guilty of using the very same approach since you cannot possibly acknowledge that you have already assumed your conclusions prior to any debate, and that you never have any intent to seriously consider any evidence other than the Bible. Your supposed interest in science and archaeology is nothing more than a masquerade, in other words, presuppositionalism, inerrancy, and divine inspiration in sheep's clothing. Why do you always refuse to discuss the UNDERLYING BASES for all of your arguments? Obviously, because you do not wish to embarrass yourself. You have been proven wrong time and again over the past few years, and that would be easy to prove by referring to past threads, for instance, threads about the Babylon prophecy and the Tyre prophecy.

It is too bad for you that people who want to find out more about you can study past evidence of your ineptitude, not to mention your present ineptitude. My word, you have no problem arguing with fundamentalist Christian scholars when they disagree with you.

Your misplaced pride and egotism are apparent. You obviously have no idea how wacky and odd your debating style appears to most people.

Whenever you get into trouble, your favorite approach is to vacate a thread. Like they say, "When the goin' gets tough, Lee Merrill leaves town." You don't really mind getting off topic if you feel that arguments from skeptics are easy to refute. It is a given that you would never participate in a thread about your real approach to debating. Isn't that right, Lee?

It is about time that someone put you in your proper place. Well, actually, Sauron has already made some good contributions in that department.

lee_merrill

I note that TWOT says the firmament can mean various places, overhead.

1) It's not a euphemism, it's an idiom, the two concepts are distinct.
2) Indeed, it does mean "all there is in nature," as in the English word "universe."

I can check my grammars when I get back home, but I am rather confident of this conclusion.

Johnny Skeptic

And various Bible stories can mean various things, such as the stories of creation, Adam and Eve, the global flood, the plagues in Egypt, the Exodus, a donkey who talked, a great fish that swallowed Johan, and a host of other topics that might very well have been intended by the writers to be myths. How in the world are people supposed to separate facts from myths?

lee_merrill

"Heaven and earth together constitute the universe ('Gen 1:1')" (TWOT)

By consulting lexicons--and commentaries by those who have studied these matters?

And as far as "tohu" being a mythological creature, see here, in possibly the most ancient book in the Bible: "Caravans turn aside from their routes; they go up into the wasteland [tohu] and perish." (Job 6:18)

Jubal_DiGriz

While I make efforts to be polite, don't use me as an excuse to avoid relevant objections. Before the talk of "axes to grind", there were a number of important, specific criticisms, which I would like to see addressed before going further (before I'm going to go further, anyways).

lee_merrill

Well, my principle concern is that when people get in the mode where they won't acknowledge any point made by the other side, and they argue by possibilities instead of probabilities, the discussion is interminable and it's just page after page of futility. I've been in such threads!

So if you could please point out the objections you have in mind, I would be glad to discuss them with anyone who really wants to discuss--but I shall not go round and round with points saying maybe tohu means a sea monster, or "heavens and earth" might not mean what the grammars say it means, and the medieval view of the heavens was the Hebrew one.

Johnny Skeptic

Probabilities? What is probable about a God who is supposedly loving, but who also indiscrimiately kills people with hurricanes, not to mention innocent animals, and who refuses to protect women from rapists?

As far as objections are concerned, you already know what some of my objections are, but you ALWAYS avoid replying to them, and quite conveniently I might add. You ALWAYS avoid discussing the FUNDAMENTALS upon which ALL of your beliefs are based. You would never be willing to start a thread about the fundamentals of your beliefs, namely inerrancy, divine inspiration of the originals, and presuppositionalim. You ALWAYS assume your conclusions BEFORE you start debates. How could it be any different for a person like you. If you were honest, you would admit that you believe that the Bible has to be right NO MATTER WHAT. You once said that if you came to believe that the Bible contains errors, you would give up Christianity. If you would, it is very unlikely that you would be willing to give up Christianity under ANY circumstances. For you, it is simply a matter of RISK ASSESSMENT. You believe that if you gave up Christianity, and it turned out the Christianity is true, you would go to hell, and that if you stayed a Christian and it turned out that Christianity is a false religion, you would end up as dust in the ground. If those were the only two possible/probable scenarios, it would be wise for you to stay a Christian. However, there is not any credible evidence that those are the only two possible/probably scenarios. The point is, based upon what you believe, you ALWAYS assume your conclusions BEFORE you start debates. Unless your views about RISK ASSESSMENT were to change, there is no way that you will ever seriously pay any attention at all to what skeptics say.

It is interesting to note that if a God exists, he needlessly withholds all kinds of evidence that would eliminate the need for debates about his existence and will. No rational God would ever run the universe like the God of the Bible runs it. If a God exists, he could easily prove to everyone that intelligent design is possible if he wanted to. Now why do you suppose that he doesn't want to?