- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,161
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Good idea. You can then simply ignore all those pesky questions that point out you have no real reason to take the position you do./thread
Just because you delete a point I make, doesn't make the point disappear.And again, EnCrypto, what's the problem? If I'm holding a note that says 2 + 2 = 5, and I interpret this note literally, then I have no choice but to claim the note says 2 + 2 = 5 --- whether the note is right or wrong is irrelevant. I'm just mimicking the note. That's the nature of a literal interpretation.
But why do you insist on taking an eroneous note literally?And again, EnCrypto, what's the problem? If I'm holding a note that says 2 + 2 = 5, and I interpret this note literally, then I have no choice but to claim the note says 2 + 2 = 5 --- whether the note is right or wrong is irrelevant. I'm just mimicking the note. That's the nature of a literal interpretation.
I just thought I would note that AVET has compared the Holy Bible to a Phone Book. Apparently he has as little regard for scripture as he has for a list of phone numbers.Do you ask someone who is holding a phone book to give you his interpretation of a number you want to call?
No --- you just say --- give me the phone number of [whatever].
Truer words have never been spoken. Forget the elaborate theological justifications, this is the real reason why AV1611VET believes what he believes. He has to desperately cling to the decaying, dusty neverland that is the King James Version because there is nothing else he understands.None --- I don't do that kind of extra-Biblical research. It's not my thing. Outside of the Bible, I'm disarmed and disoriented.
Vance, I'm going to ask you one more time, with the question reworded for simplicity. Then I'm going to do my /thread thing, and I'm done here.
But I'm asking you to give me a straight YES or NO to this simple question:
If I interpret the Bible literally, do I have the right to claim the Flood was a local flood?
In my opinion --- NO --- what say you?
And then I'm done here.
Here we go again --- as with the Egyptians and the Sumerians --- the Chinese came later, from the grandson of Noah, and [first] cousin of Nimrod.
[bible]Genesis 10:17[/bible]
EnCrypto, aside from not knowing me very well, if at all, let me say this.
I interpret the King James Bible literally.
I am convinced that it is now truly a pride issue.
/thread
Have you noticed, Vance, that all of these cultures that have supposedly been around for so long --- got the flood story wrong?
In everything I've read so far --- not one has mentioned Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth by name; given the dimensions of the Ark; the duration of the rainfall; the windows of Heaven; the animals going in two by two --- nothing.
This tells me that either the Flood didn't happen, or the stories were written after-the-fact to mock the true story --- and which explanation do you think I'm going to go with?
Vance, I'm going to ask you one more time, with the question reworded for simplicity. Then I'm going to do my /thread thing, and I'm done here.
But I'm asking you to give me a straight YES or NO to this simple question:
If I interpret the Bible literally, do I have the right to claim the Flood was a local flood?
In my opinion --- NO --- what say you?
/thread
You have the right to claim whatever the heck you want. Do you mean ought you to claim the Flood was local, given that you interpret the Bible literally?
To that, I answer yes because however you interpret the Bible, it can be literal but wrong. And that's what the evidence points to.
The problem with AVET is that he cannot retreat from his entrenched position. If he does so, he looses the Sword and Shield of The Infallible Word of God and that leaves him with nothing.This is a concept that AV simply can't accept. No way, no how.
The map is not the territory. I have explained to AV what this means, but as soon as he starts to follow the argument he swerves right back to biblical inerrancy, his make believe hypotheticals, and unfalsifiable Omphalos post-modernistic nonsense.
As soon as someone prefers their imagined world over reality there really is nothing left to debate.
It would be an epiphany for him to realize that he would not lose those at all, but have them even stronger and more valuable.The problem with AVET is that he cannot retreat from his entrenched position. If he does so, he looses the Sword and Shield of The Infallible Word of God and that leaves him with nothing.
And he'll probably link back to this at one point too.Once again, poor AVET gets PWND by Theistic and non-theistic evolutionists in the forum and then runs away. Sadly, he will just repeat the same beaten points in another thread (like, the Bible is the same as a Phone Book) and pretend he didn't loose the argument here.
And he'll probably link back to this at one point too.
If I see that apple challenge one more time...Yeah, he's become very fond of linking his responses nowadays. He claims it is because we don't listen to him and make him repeat himself. The truth is, we are the ones having to repeat why his arguments don't fly and he is the one that does not listen.