gagster

Who's Magus55?



Greg

gagster

Actually, this is unfair to the Black Knight. After the fight was over, he said "Allright, we'll call it a draw." Jason's doing worse than the Black Knight and yet he's still claiming victory.



Greg

Kosh

A poster in BC&A who exhibits the those same traits. Do a search and you'll see what I mean....

Asha'man

Sean's newest post is up, and I approve.

He continues to pressure Jason to actually enter into the debate, and actually post some sort of harmonization. He also expands his examples to demonstrate more issues that Jason has utterly ignored.

However, I think the discussion of copying is a bit off topic, and a waste of words that could otherwise be used to hammer Jason on his failure to present a case.

I especially like this point:
It has always seemed to me that the plain meaning of the words is the most important one, if not the only one. Unless the author is incompetent, the meaning we read should be the one the author intended. If the author intended something else, then his writing is flawed, and I would call that an error in itself, no other contradiction needed.

I'd sure like to see an apologist address that issue, especially since it's clear that Jason isn't going to.

Dean Anderson

I think this one should be:

Argumentum ad Mammon
"I assure you that I have proof for what I am asserting, but you will have to send me money before I will tell you what it is."

Kosh

:notworthy

Doin' the LAWDS work!

gregor

Mr. Till

You mentioned eariler some of your debates. I've enjoyed them here and on the skeptical review site, but I have a favor to ask. Can you synthesize your debates into a two-page summary, removing the polemic and listing the strongest points from each side?

For example, in the debate on the Olivet Discourse, I think you post almost eight pages of point-by-point debating, but to comprehend it, you have to start on page one and follow through to the end. Even then, it's difficult for me to follow on screen.

What I'd request is something like one page of:
"Turkel argues the preterist position. . . .. His points are 1, 2, 3,. . ."

"The strongest Turkel arguments are 2, 4, & 6"

Then another page of: "In response, . . . "

"In conclusion, the preterist position is faulty because . . ."

Thanks

Farrell Till

Surely Kosh was not being serious. "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" Corrected and Explained" is a joke. The fact that it was written by Jason Gastrich, who bans opposition in his own forum, and has taken beatings here should be sufficient for anyone to doubt seriously that it is scholarly enough to change anyone's mind.

I challenge Kosh to take one of Gastrich's explanations of a discrepancy, present it here, and try to defend it. I will gladly serve as his opponent.

Farrell Till

No, I can't do that. Do you have any idea how much time that would take? I would have to put all of my other projects on hold.

I hope you will take this in the spirit that it was intended, but I think that you are too much a part of the computer generation, who wants everything in digest form. In order to expose the flaws in biblical inerrancy, one must take the arguments of those who espouse this belief and reply to them in detail. If you really want to become qualified to debunk biblical inerrancy, you must accept that it is going to take a big investment of time to learn the subject well enough to talk about it intelligently.

gregor

Again, while I enjoy a debunking as much as the next guy, I don't have the inclination to read post after post of:

"I pointed this out last time, but Turkel failed to respond."

"It's just like the time I pointed out Z, but he failed to respond."

"And it's kind of like the word "XXXX" which in argument 1 he said meant 'day', but today he says it means 'generation'. And he doesn't have links, and he is begging for money, and he said I was X when it's really him who is X, and on. . .and on. . . and on."

Don't take it as a personal affront, but you've convinced me that Turkel's a turkey (actually he convinced me of that fact). I don't need to see repeated examples that he's a turkey. I'd just rather see a two to four page sythensis of the issue than twenty pages of charge and counter-charge where we sift through personal attacks to find a few good points.