Joe Nobody

So I take it you concluded I was knowingly using Typhon's digs to avoid discussing anything of substance while positing his post contained nonsense? And the reason for this is? Go ahead, say it. Don't roll that carpet up yet.

Feel free to retract that statement as my comments to him were posted 4 minutes after your post appeared appeared.

Joe Nobody

I never attempted to give a reason because I didn't feel one is neccessary. Go to encyclopedia.com. Type Jesus into the box.

Oh no, they affrim him as a historical figure! Throw it all in the garbage.

Of course, if the encyclopedia constantly had errors in it the trustworthyness of it goes down. Then again, maybe one guy is resposonsible for most of the faulty parts and others generally record accurately. There are different factors to consider. Again, I never said to accept encyclopedias as accurate authorites. I said we generally accept the material as true. If you want to deny that then I guess you will have to discuss it with someone else because I am not going to.

Why would one assume books from thousands of years ago would contain current scientific ideas? Inaccurate descriptions of the world are easy to explain in ancient texts. No particle accelerators back then.

Joe Nobody

Toto

Joe, Joe, we're getting a little touchy here. I saw several posts from you which avoided anything of substance, as you said. Then we cross posted, and I see a long post which actually does contain some substance! So congratulations!

But perhaps I should back up and ask you what position you want to defend. You admit there are many inaccuracies in the Bible, but you still haven't explained why there is any special value to the rest of it, beyond its literary value.

For example, there are historical inaccuracies in the works of Shakespeare, as well as some valid parts, some valid philosophy, etc. But the works of Shakespeare are not sacred texts. You read them and take what you want from them. No unbeliever has any problem with using the Bible like that, but I assume that even liberal Christians put some greater value on the Bible than on Shakespeare. Maybe I'm wrong? If so, tell me.

So what is your position - how is the Bible more useful than Shakespeare? If the Bible is inaccurate, what is its role in Christianity? Isn't "progressive revelation" just a way to avoid all those unpleasant parts of the Old Testament?

Toto

You were the one who brought up encyclopedias, and now you won't discuss it. You're no fun.

Toto

Joe, not to pick on you, but here's an example of your avoiding the point. I said:

You chopped this up:

So you got to throw in a comment about how unreasonable it is of me to expect an ancient work to contain scientific ideas, while you avoided my question: If so, what standards do you use to judge that value?

Do you actually have a coherent idea about the value of the Bible?

emotional

"It is not God-honouring to judge the Bible. It says it is the Word of God, therefore take it at its word and do not judge it any more than you would judge God himself."

This is the mindset I usually encounter when I point out Biblical errors to theists. Luckily, I have the Qur'an to help me. The Qur'an too makes the claim of being the Word of God, so I can deflect the debate towards the question of why prefer the Bible to the Qur'an. And then they usually say, "the Bible has more evidence to back it up". And I say, "Evidence?! You're looking for evidence to confirm the Bible?! You're actually putting God's Word to the test?!". Ice gets broken...

lpetrich

And what's really fun about the Koran in this regard is that some parts (I don't recall the precise verses) contain a challenge to those who claim that it has human authorship: to create a sura (chapter) like the ones already in the Koran.

This challenge has the problem of how the resemblance is to be judged (the Koran doesn't say), and some of those who have taken this challenge have provoked the ire of certain Muslims.

But the idea is that nobody will be able to succeed, thus demonstrating the Koran's divine authorship.

Tercel

It seems that some here think that if they're not insulting the Christian posters they're not doing their job properly. Hence anything I do say needs to be reinterpreted until it can be pulled apart with the maximum number of derogatory comments added in.
Anyone who defends what could even conceivably be a Christian position also generally gets it done to them: That's what's happening to you in this thread.
Btw, if you can get your point across successfully I'll be impressed: I hate to think how many times I've attempted to argue what you're arguing here.

ARGH! Please NO! SingleDad aka Malaclypse does that all the time and I hate it. Fortunately he seems to be gone for the moment...

Toto

It might help if Joe could actually give a coherent statement of why he thinks the Bible has some value. I've asked several times, and I'm still waiting.

Joe Nobody

Some people have to do things outside of discuss at II. So replies may take a few days sometimes....

Joe Nobody