ksen

Tradition I suppose.

ksen

You haven't been asking me to defend inerrancy. You've been asking me to attempt nonsensical things like prove the Adam and Eve account was in the original text.

You didn't refute my contention that you only use the Bible when it is convenient for you to do so.

I obviously know that you are prepared to just throw up these ridiculous assertions in an attempt to play "gotcha!"

I'm not playing "gotcha!" with you. If you want to have a real discussion I'd be happy to have one with you. However you need to convince me that our discussion will be an honest one (i.e. no claiming that I can't use the Bible if you start using it).

Nylla

*blink*

Contrary to the evidence that what you were taught is wrong?

ksen

What evidence?

When I look at what is presented I see a LOT of "could be", "probablies."

I've come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity.

Therefore if Jesus makes a claim that Moses wrote the Law should I believe Jesus or today's scholars?

I'm erring on the side of what Jesus claimed.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But I don't think I am.

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously some account of the story was in the original texts. When I first asked you to produce evidence that the story was in the originals, I did not ask my question properly. What I should have said was "What evidence do you have that the CURRENT copies of the story of Adam and Eve are the same as the ORIGINAL story of Adam and Eve except for scribal and copyist errors?" What is your answer? You most certainly cannot produce a consensus of historians who will claim that the CURRENT copies of the story of Adam and Eve are the same as the ORIGINAL story of Adam and Eve except for scribal and copyist errors.

Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrnant texts? My word, he refused to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died with hearing the Gospel message. May I ask of what value inerrant or errant texts are to people who do not have access to them?

ksen

You seem to have a habit of deciding you are not asking your questions properly once the questions you do ask are answered and you don't like the answer.

It leaves me with the impression that you are just trying to play games and are not really interested in two-way discussion.

I am done trying to dance to your ever-changing tune.

-----------------------

And I've already answered these questions a number of times as well. I will answer them one more time for you. After that if you still ask the same questions of me I'll have to conclude that this is just another part of your gameplaying.

It's my contention that God is not obligated to us in any way.

You HAVE heard the Gospel message so what is your excuse now? Since you DO have access to the texts, errant or otherwise, what is the excuse you will use?

Nylla

Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.
Edmund: Mm! ... What?
Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.
Edmund: And what's that, exactly?
Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.
Edmund: I see. And what about it?
Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.
Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?
Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.
Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?
Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.
Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.
Percy: No, My Lord.
Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.
Percy: Yes, My Lord.

ksen

That's nice.

Did you notice that Percy didn't claim to have seen either the Stone of Galveston or Infanta's eyes? He said he was reporting something others were saying.

I'm guessing you think this passage has something to do with our conversation?

Johnny Skeptic

No, you have known all along what I meant. Everyone knows that if you have copies of a document, there had to be originals.

Well of course you are. You are well aware that no competent historian would ever claim that the CURRENT copies of the story of Adam and Eve are the same as the ORIGINAL story of Adam and Eve except for scribal and copyist errors. Contrary to what you claimed, that IS an issue inerrancy.

Why are you concerned only with me? Surely you must know that there are many people besides me who want to know what evidence you have that the CURRENT copies of the story of Adam and Eve are the same as the ORIGINAL story of Adam and Eve except for scribal and copyist errors.

I will use the excuse that unless Christians can produce reasonable evidence that God is not a sinner, there are not any good reasons for anyone to become a Christian.

Gundulf

Ask him what evidence he has that "Four Score and Seven Years Ago" was in the original text of the Gettysburg Address.

Given the documentary hypothesis, there was no 'original text' of Genesis, so it is a bizzare question.

Given mosaic authorship, we have no textual evidence that the Adam and Eve story were absent from any extant copy of Genesis, so what evidence is there that they were ever absent?

Either way, I doubt your opponent believes in Mosaic authorship - he'd probably lean toward a documentary hypothesis. Hence, there is to him no 'original text' of Genesis... So why is he asking what was in a document that he doesn't believe existed to start with?