rhutchin

The problem here is that you have not explained how 2 Peter 3:9 should be applied universally. You have extracted the verse out of its context and used it to say that which it does not say - The argument hinges on the meaning of "any." You have not been able to develop an analysis of the verse within its surrounding context to support your position. You simply extract the verse from that context and interpret it alone. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Johnny Skeptic

But even if God is willing that some will persish, that is sufficient reason for people to reject him. It is obvious from the world that we live in that God is willing that some will perish. Even if the Bible clearly stated in every book that God is willing that some will perish, and never indicated anything to the contrary, that would be sufficient reason for people to reject him. All arguments must eventually return to the issue of the character of God. You would not be able to love God if he told lies, but yet you ask people to accept a God who has committed many atrocities that are much worse than lying. You have somehow been able to abandon your principles and morals based upon threats, but decent people are not able to do that. If you have children, if they were drowning, would you try to save all of them? If so, why?

What evidence do you have that God is not bi-polar? If he were bi-polar, how would he act any differently than he does now? Even Attila the Hun did not kill some of his most devout and faithful followers.

There is not any credible evidence at all that 2 Peter 3:9 belongs in the Bible. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Johnny: Rhutchin, I might be able to get Farrell Till to debate inerrancy with you in a new thread that I can start. If I can, are you interested? May I ask what good an inerrant Bible is if it can be changed? It can in fact easily be changed, taken to some remote jungle areas of the world, and used to deceive at least a few people. If the original Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that it has been PRESERVED inerrant?

What evidence do you have that the additional books in the Roman Catholic Bible are not the word of God?

Do you know how the New Testament Canon was put together? Why should anyone believe that God chose which writings were chosen to be in the New Testament Canon? Were there any disagreements over which writings were chosen?

rhutchin

The link did not work. It it was the Till article, I did not see that he referred to 2 Peter 3:9.

I do not see people complaining about 2 Peter being in the bible.

I guess that your focus on these issues means that you cannot analyze 2 Peter 3:9 in context with the surrounding verses and get it to say what you want to believe. Then again, maybe you are still working on it.

Johnny Skeptic

I just tried the link and it did work.

The article refers to inerrancy. If the Bible is probably errant in some places, why should anyone assume that 2 Peter 3:9 is inerrant? Have you not basically said that if the Bible is errant in some places, it should not be considered to be reliable in other places?

You obviously know that you are not able to successfully debate inerrancy, so I accept your admission of defeat. It is well-known that you do not like to conduct detailed research. You have probably learned from past experience that you are inept at conducting detailed research.

I am complaining, but even if it does belong in the Bible, my arguments still work.

You still need to take a beginner's course in reading comprehension. In my previous post, I said:

I agree with you that God is willing that some will persish. I said "It is obvious from the world that we live in that God is willing that some will perish." All that you are arguing is that the verse is not lie, but my arguments work whether it is a lie or not. God's character is THE fundamentalist issue. The Bible depends lock, stock, and barrel upon God's character being good. Decent people are not able to will themselves to abandon their principles and morals based upon threats. That is why Pascal's Wager, aka risk assessment, is a fraud. You certainly will never convince anyone to become a Christian by claiming that God will hurt them if they refuse to love him, but you might convince some people to become Christians if you convince them that God has good character. You know that you are not able to successfully defend God's character, so you always avoid discussing that topic. God's detestable character is in fact one of the main reasons why people give up Christianity, or why they refuse to become Christians, and yet are afraid to discuss that issue.

I asked you what evidence you have that God is not bi-polar, but you refused to reply to that argument, just like you have refused to debate inerrancy. If God is bi-polar, I don't see how he would act any differently than he is now. Even Attila the Hun did not kill some of his most devout followers.

I asked you "If you have children, if they were drowning, would you try to save all of them? If so, why?" Why won't you answer
my questions? Are you afraid that you will embarrass yourself?

Would you like to have a moderated debate with me about the character of God? If so, if you were evasive in a formal debate, you would embarrass yourself even more than you have in this thread, and in a number of other threads. You are one of the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across. However, it doesn't matter because I do not mind at all reposting some of my arguments so readers can see that you are not nearly as confident about some of your arguments as you pretend you are.

I wonder how much of this post you will be afraid to answer.

I am a patient and dedicated skeptic. My life expectancy is about 15 years. You can rest assured that as long as I am able, I will not leave the Secular Web, so if you are hoping to outlast me, you will probably have to live for more than 15 more years.

Amaleq13

The original works for me as well but the quoted version didn't so I fixed it.

rhutchin

I guess we now agree on the correct understanding of 2 Peter 3:9.

Why not start some new threads to address your other subjects?

Gamera

Not really. You have the same problem interpreting a text written 10 years ago. Texts are texts. The same hermeneutics applies.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3871302]You have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle.


It's not obvious to me. I never met Paul or Barnabas. All I have is a text. Paul and Barnabas weren't a text, but people who could talk about what they witnessed. Texts don't do that. Texts just are, and must be interpreted.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Doug Shaver;3871519]I've made no assumption as you seem not to have given any thought to the issue. Which defines the problem. You seem not to have externalized the issue of what it means to interpret a text as opposed to observe a fact. We ARE talking about texts, but you haven't seemed to actually contemplated what that means. You're statments about postmodernism only confirm that text remain unproblematic for you.

I don't think I did, but I'm not going to quibble with you. I never compared one person's existence with another, only a single peson's existential state with another state.

Your notion of a valid argument and mine are quite different.

Not at all. Existential questions are never between two people, but only between the options a person has. Comparing two persons is meaningless because there is no basis for the comparison. Comparing ones existence as a loving person vs an unloving person is what it means to have a meaningful existence. We constantly compare our possibilities and make judgements on them. But they can only apply to ourselves and aren't subject to imperical verification. If a person claims his life is better because he used to be a loving person, but now embraces selfishness, there is no arguing with that. I can only tell you that I have reached the opposite conclusion in my existence. As Heidegger so trenchantly said, there is no general human existence, existence is "je meines" -- "always MY existence."

And that's what the gospel message addresses.

Gamera

[QUOTE=aa5874;3871617]My confrontation with the gospel kerygma has nothing to do with God's ability to hear. How would one establish that God can hear in any case? The requirement seems meaningless to me.

Who said I "believe" in Jesus. I said I accept the gospel message.

Absolutely true: God has never spoken to me. What does that have to do with the gospel message. The gospel is a narrative, a text. It isn't God, which I know very little about and don't really need to know a lot about.