Summations Only

quote:

---

However I do know there's plenty of evidence around. All universe, living and not living things testify of the existence of God,

---

Or so the Bible says. But I don't think that the Bible saying something that isn't true should be a reason to consider it the Word of God.

quote:

---

things didn't just happened the way evolutionists think. There's intelligent design. The geological record is more related to the universal flood described in Genesis than the idea of the old earth

---

Propaganda isn't evidence.

quote:

---

Prophecies in Daniel and Revelation seem to be taking place today....

---

I 'd love to know how it could be the case that "prophecies" about the 2nd Century BC (Daniel) could be coming true today... But really, it isn't true that there's any good evidence of fulfilled Biblcal prophecies.

I've tried to keep out of this discussion, but seriously, Faith, Why would a rational person lie just to pretend that you are right ?

Instead of attacking GDR to cover up your back-pedalling you could just admit that you were wrong to claim that Jesus authored the Bible.

quote:

---

This idea that inspiration makes the authors of the Bible "robotic" is really a revelation of your own lack of knowledge of how the Holy Spirit works, which is no doubt due to your rejection of much of what He teaches.

---

It's not GDR's idea. It's yours.

So you "honestly" attacked your own ideas, and attacked GDR for - allegedly - holding those ideas.And you expect to be believed ?The Bible, of course, does not credit Jesus as author. It does identify human authors of some books. So in claiming Jesus as author you are contradicting the Bible anyway.

GDR didn't claim that inspiration made robots of inspired authors. That's his description of your claim that Jesus was the author. GDR believes in inspiration. He does NOT believe that it makes robots of the authors. So no, you were not answering GDR's claims at all.

I am going to have to repeat the point that GDR believes in the inspiration of Scripture. He did NOT describe inspiration as rendering the human authors into robots. He did not attack you for believing in inspiration at all. So be honest, Faith, stop using the term "inspiration" to confuse the issue and misrepresent GDR.

There's a difference between rejecting inspiration of scripture and rejecting the inspiration of particular passages.And just to be clear the point of contention is your claim that Jesus authored the entire Bible. Which is denying the contributions of the human authors, against any sensible reading of the Bible. And your repeated attempts to evade the issue indicates to me very clearly that you can,t defend it and so you're engaged in one of your typical campaigns of dishonesty in an attempt to hide that fact.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

No, I'm not inventing a new meaning. Anyone familiar with the ordinary English usage knows that inspiring is not a synonym for authoring!You really need to recognise that you don't have that great a grasp of Christian doctrine. Even in this thread you mangled the Doctrine of Election even as you were "defending" it.

LOL!Faith, you simply don't know what you are talking about. You claim that the Doctrne of Election is a standard Christian doctrine and then contradict it in the same post. You claim that the Doctrine of Jnspiration is equivalent to Divine authorship when that is only one extreme view. As usual you put your pride before the truth.

quote:

---

Yes, it isn't "just opinion," but there's a very strange idea here about opinion, as if any opinion just by being opinion isn't to be taken seriously

---

In general, the point is that opinions presented as evidence are - at best - arguing from authority - unless the question is a survey of opinions. Even then you would need to do a proper survey rather than cherry-picking agreement

quote:

---

When you are dealing with what the Bible says you are dealing with facts: the words say such and such. The "opinions" you arrive at are conclusions based on a logical consideration of the facts.

---

But that isn't really what you do, is it ?Inspiration is never equated with inerrancy in the Bible.Luke 1:1-4 presents the Gospel as the fruits of human research, without any hint of being dictated by an outside source. Clearly this marks a human as the author. Why should we assume that Luke :1-4 is misleading or wrong ?The Bible does contain contradictions and errors and failed prophecies on any reasonable reading. Why should we set aside reason and logic to deny these ?If you followed the method you described you wouldn't hold the views you do.

quote:

---

I think this idea about opinion is a kind of relativism that cripples minds. I suppose it can be traced to Postmodernism.

---

That's laughably wrong and silly. The motto of the Royal Society - one of the foundations of science as we understand it today expresses the same idea. Nullus in verba. "Take nobody's word for it". It's rational not to give any great weight to opinions.If anything it's post-modernism and its relativism that give more weight to opinions.

quote:

---

I was talking about the methods of those who exegete the scriptures and arrive at the conclusions about inspiration and inerrancy that the orthodox traditional conservative churches do, as exemplified in the couple of sermons I linked and I'm sure by hundreds more at Sermon Audio since they represent the orthodox conservative traditional churches.

---

Except that it is quite obvious that you left out a whole lot. Notably the role of interpretation - and the role of dogma in dictating interpretation.

quote:

---

What you get out of the scriptures I dare suggest is something pretty idiosyncratic.

---

And yet anyone who follows sensible methods would come to the same conclusions. This is simple stuff.

quote:

---

The way "opinion" has been used here is nothing short of idiotic.

---

And there you display your usual hatred of rationality.Really you seem to be a post-modernist bully. Out to socially construct your own truth and to make people believe it.

They may well do to support the claim that your view is AN orthodox view. But how do. They support your claim that is is THE orthodox view ? There is a difference, and it is far more difficult to rationally argue for the latter.

I have to say that Biblical Inerrancy is a really weird mind-set if it means taking obvious myths like the Tower of Babel story at face value, while regarding a similar reading of the first view verses of Luke as "idiosyncratic".

So you accept that the author of Luke was a human writing about the findings of his own researches, and not Jesus ?

quote:

---

Again, the only problem here is your expectation of what inspiration means. I never use the term "dictation" but that's the weird idea you all get and I don't know how to dispel it.

---

Faith, according to you Jesus authored every book of the Bible, meaning that the words are all his and not those of the men who actually wrote the books. Which really suggests dictation, since you allow no role for the human authors other than setting down the words decreed by Jesus.So this "weird idea" comes directly from your own words.THe Gospel of Luke, however, is devoid of any suggestion of inspiration. The human author carried out researches - surely redundant if Jesus is just going to give him the words anyway - and set out the results, with no mention of any supernatural influence.Why does this not suggest that if there was any inspiration, it was something more subtle than Jesus controlling the whole thing ? Why say that Jesus was the author when the book presents itself as a human composition ? At the least you are claiming that a simple text is badly misleading, which seems rather odd in an book inspired by God.