To all athiests out there: bring it on

[snerkel]

Originally posted by euphoric
If I understood her correctly, I think she was saying that one could not extrapolate an accurate age of the universe solely by analyzing the geneologies provided by the Bible.

-brett

Thanks brett. That is exactly what I was saying.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
I did, which section is it published under? The author SPECIFICALLY had it published under fiction, which is a very big clue.

Sorry, but you've gleaned that info independent of the text itself. You're not allowed to do that, remember?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by snerkel
Apparently, you misunderstood my post. I stated in my post: "I do NOT agree that following genealogy proves the age of the earth."

Just for clarification, I am NOT a young earth creationist. 

LOL yeah sorry about this that I read, and posted right when I woke up I didn't have my coffee.

 

[Outspoken]

"Sorry, but you've gleaned that info independent of the text itself. You're not allowed to do that, remember?"

Not at all, God published the book to be nonfiction, that is very essential to understanding the bible, its not text independant at all.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Not at all, God published the book to be nonfiction, that is very essential to understanding the bible, its not text independant at all.

So, prove it already. Show me something in the Bible that says so.

(Of course, keep in mind that you're not only trying to prove to me that the Bible is non-fiction, but that it's literal non-fiction. That is, the events in Genesis actually occured exactly the way it is described.)

 

[Outspoken]

"So, prove it already. Show me something in the Bible that says so."

Try reading the first chapter of Luke. If you're talking about just genesis, I already showed you that it is nonfiction. the lineage also should give you a clue Pete.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Try reading the first chapter of Luke.

Okay, done. Anything I should look for in particular?

If you're talking about just genesis, I already showed you that it is nonfiction.

You did? Refer me to that post then, because I must have missed it (but remember, you're trying to convince me Genesis is literal).

the lineage also should give you a clue Pete.

Stop being so vague. If you've got passages to cite, then just cite them. Spell it out for me, otherwise stop wasting my time.

 

[Outspoken]

"Okay, done. Anything I should look for in particular?"

Its pretty self-explanitory.

"you're trying to convince me Genesis is literal"

Yup, context, word usage, etc..

"Stop being so vague."

Not being vague at all. Adam was a real guy else he wouldn't be included in lineage. Yet another text clue.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Its pretty self-explanitory.

Maybe to you, but I don't see anything in there that says I have to take Genesis literally.

Anyway, we've danced around the issue long enough now, and all I'm convinced of is that you're either unable or unwilling (or both) to explain your position on why the Bible (and specifically Genesis) has to be taken literally. So, I decided to just ask people in the Apologetics forum and I'll see if I get a better answer there.

 

[Outspoken]

"to explain your position on why the Bible "

I've shown you many contextual clues, if you don't want to see them, that's not my problem but don't close your eyes and yell that they aren't there.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
I've shown you many contextual clues, if you don't want to see them, that's not my problem but don't close your eyes and yell that they aren't there.

Right, it's my fault I don't understand your vague, one-sentence answers.

Like I said, I made a post in Apologetics, so I'll see what kind of answers I get there.

 

[Outspoken]

"Right, it's my fault I don't understand your vague, one-sentence answers. "

Actually its your fault for not reading. I'm not going to take your hand and lead you to the bathroom then stand and watch you and wipe your bum. I expect you to read the passages I give and do some real thinking.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
I expect you to read the passages I give and do some real thinking.

The only passages you've told me to read is Luke 1. Well, I did, and I still don't see why I'm supposed to take Gen 1 literally (unless you're referring to Luke 1:2?). If there are specific passages that support your position then cite them. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it. If you expect me to sit there reading the Bible and suddenly have an epiphany or something, you're mistaken.

 

[Outspoken]

"If there are specific passages that support your position then cite them"

Pete, I have several times. The passage itself shows its literal.

"If you expect me to sit there reading the Bible and suddenly have an epiphany or something, you're mistaken."

Guess that's the proble, you're not reading or you don't understand it then.....

 

[snerkel]

Originally posted by seesaw
LOL yeah sorry about this that I read, and posted right when I woke up I didn't have my coffee.

Hey! I resemble that remark most days.

No problem

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Pete, I have several times. The passage itself shows its literal.

And here we are back to square one. Using the text to prove the text. Yet, if I apply this principle to other texts, you cry foul. And if I try to disprove a literal interpretation of the text with outside evidence, you also cry foul. Basically, I find your whole position contradictory and illogical.

Guess that's the proble, you're not reading or you don't understand it then.....

I read the Bible because it is an important cultural document, and I treat it the same as I treat other religious documents. The fact is, I see no reason to treat it as 100% literal, because (as I've explained before) 1) real-world evidence contradicts it (which I will not arbitrarily discard), and 2) I'd also have to discard other religious texts (yet I see no reason to favor the Bible in such a manner).

I try to keep an open mind towards all religions, philosophies, and sciences. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there is stuff in the Bible that supports your position, but you've yet to make a real argument for it.

 

[Outspoken]

"Yet, if I apply this principle to other texts, you cry foul."

no, I don't...I haven't seen you do it yet, as long as you take it in context.

"real-world evidence contradicts it"

I disagree.

"you've yet to make a real argument for it."

whatever Pete. If you don't want to accept the evidience I've given you, thats okay, its what makes you a nonchristian, you don't accept the bible, nor its text. Saying its not there is just a whole nother lie entirely though.

 

[troodon]

I guess I'll supply here an example of what Pete Harcoff (I'm not sure to be that formal or not) calls "using the text to support the text." I just did an extensive research project on A Tale of a Tub by Jonathan Swift, and have it on my mind, so I'll use it as my example. In the story, the narrator (Swift's persona), tells the reader very explicitly that he is a "historian" and is writing this "true account" "for the universal benefit of mankind." The Tale then proceeds to give what is interpreted by ALL critics I have found to be an allegorical account of the history of the Catholic Church and of the Reformation. No one accepts the story as the truthful account of three brothers who use their father's will to their own means to do whatever they like with the cloaks they inherited. Yet the text itself claims to be historical and the narrator claims to be a historian. Is it therefor valid for me to claim the story must have happened simply because the narrator says it did?

PS: How do I use the quote tool? I would be most appreciated if someone would be so kind as to enlighten me.

 

[lithium.]

PS: How do I use the quote tool? I would be most appreciated if someone would be so kind as to enlighten me.

Look here it has the answer http://www.christianforums.com/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode

 

[Outspoken]

"Is it therefor valid for me to claim the story must have happened simply because the narrator says it did? "

Well first contextual clue..it was published under fiction, correct? there's your answer.