|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: That is the point, there is none. Only man's interpretation of the stories. what jar said is true. there is indeed archaeological and historical evidence associated with some of the stories in the bible. for instance, we know from external sources that the assyrian invasions referenced in isaiah 7 actually happened, and that israel was, in fact, destroyed by the second one. the archaeological and historical records do not necessarily back up the bible's prophecies as 100% true, of course. even the bible's own history records do not do that -- simply compare 2 kings 15+16 to isaiah 7 to see that. there is also an image upthread of a stele left by shalmanessar iii, depicting someone described in the bible -- put as part of an event that seems rather intentionally left out. generally speaking, the evidence gets stronger towards the end of the old testament period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: His posts are uncessesarily lengthy and they repeat material already covered this is because your replies are frequently answered by the thing you're replying to. repeating the refutation is necessary when you repeat the refuted claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
you're going to have to try harder, dawn, considering that i quoted almost your entire post, as i have in nearly every reply to you. if you feel i have left something important out -- besides, you know, the stuff i've already addressed a thousand times -- feel free to point it out.
my claims of misrepresentation were not baseless. they included context and clarification. yours are pedantry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Your position also assumes it has accurately taken care of anything we believe or accept as valid,[sic] to make the abover[sic] determination,[sic] it[sic] has not. has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
You have assumed incorrectly that Matthew has misrepresented Isa[sic]'s words. You make this assumption on the basis of the plain and simple reading of the text. look up "assumption" again, please.
You then disregard the entire text which makes it clear these are not Isa[sic]'s words to begin with[sic] read isaiah again, please.
You further disregard inspiration as irrelevant, which is clearly a part of the text[sic] read matthew again, please.
it[sic] would follow then that matthew[sic] was not misrepresenting Isa[sic]'s words and because inspiration is involved only inspiration could make known what Gods[sic] exact meaning in the words were. quote: You have falsely limited God to a then and now interpretation[sic] i've correctly limited the text to what it says, instead of what dawn imagines.
At bare minimum your claim that matt[sic] misrepresents Isa[sic] is false, because they are not his words to begin with and that MY[sic] SIMPLE[sic] FRIEND[sic] IS[sic] WHAT[sic] THE[sic] TEXT[sic] INDICATES[sic] AND[sic] SAYS[sic] DIRECTLY[sic] quote: Arch[sic], Isa[sic], is it from man or God? quote: here[sic] is but a small example of how your MISUNDERSTANDING[sic] OF[sic] SCRIPTURE[sic] demonstrates that there is no "confirmation bias" on my part. look up "confirmation bias" again, please.
you[sic] simply cant go by the rules you set up[sic] quote: P.S. Arch[sic] Isa[sic], from God or man? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairification its evasion and not going by your own rules again, Message 524, the post that grants the title to this whole sub-thread, i wrote:
quote: you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthew matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:
quote: now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rules which you have consistently misrepresented, regardless of the fact that i keep restating the clarification between reading the words and believing every claim indiscriminately.
Are the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not matthew misrepresents isaiah.
now should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I can you've got to be kidding me. i've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
bluescat writes: Just because there is some evidence that the person, place or thing occurred, it doesn't necessarily make the entire story true, which is the lack of evidence I was speaking of. of course. i was just attempting to clarify that idea a bit with some added detail. not that this will help dawn. we can't get past "claims" vs "is", nevermind the subtle difference between embellished history, historically set fiction, academic history, and real events.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024