Posted on 01/03/2010 10:10:25 AM PST by SunkenCiv
>>I didnt say “TEXT” I said Gods word is! either you believe it or not...simple<<
When it comes to theology, I believe God. I am still waiting where it answers the simple questions I posed. And if it is to be taken literally, I am waiting to see how you reconcile the differing interpretations of the languages.
We “appeal to authority” for information all the time.
Do you believe Antarctica is cold? Have you been there or just accepting some “authority”?
the ORIGINAL source is GODS WORD is INSPIRED by GOD..believe it or not..2 tim 3;16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: realy quite simple if you believe God and not man ><>
>>lets start here ok? which language do you read?<<
It is irrelevant what I read. I am not saying any text is to be taken literally.
You make the contention, therefore it is up to you to tell us all that you have read the text in its original language(s).
If not, then you do NOT take the Bible literally, but merely figuratively.
It is one or the other. And the onus in on you.
>>We “appeal to authority” for information all the time.
Do you believe Antarctica is cold? Have you been there or just accepting some “authority”?<<
You don’t understand the “appeal to authority” fallacy, do you?
>>the ORIGINAL source is GODS WORD is INSPIRED by GOD..believe it or not..2 tim 3;16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: realy quite simple if you believe God and not man<<
And I agree with you for matters theological. My question continues to be how it is you use the Bible as a scientific text. I have posed a handful of scientific questions that modern science can answer. If you use the Bible as a reference you must answer them AND in the original languages to support your “literal” interpretation contention.
Just for grins and giggles for the other people on this thread, just what is your 'job' as you see it.
Who on this thread claimed that the Bible is literal, or must be read literally? I didn't see anyone but you raise the issue.
Why are you addressing a topic no one but yourself brought up?
Again, your appeal to authority is fun but of no probative nor argumentative value. I can call up a bazillion quotes that say any and all things.
My “job” is to make it clear that many/most Conservatives do understand science and need not fall back to simple logical fallacies to make our point.
Suggesting the Earth (and, by extension the Universe) is 6,000 years old feeds into the liberal stereotype of us as being anti-intellectual and flat out stupid. It opens parallels to AGW (which is NOT science but you have to know what science is before you can combat what is not).
Contradicting TToE and other natural sciences (YEC contradicts all of them) is like voting on the gender of the class bunny.
Start with post 15 mm.
Read before you spew. It is a great idea.
And whose job? Not just fd’s or he wouldn’t have said *our* job.
>>And whose job? Not just fd’s or he wouldn’t have said *our* job.<<
It is the job of every Conservative who understands science.
I read it and the others.
Where did any one but you bring up reading the Bible literally?
Is that the only kind of argument you can win, the strawman you set up and demand others to support?
>>Where did any one but you bring up reading the Bible literally?<<
You need to follow the argument. He says the Bible “says” or “doesn’t say” xxxx. That implies literal interpretation.
My challenge of where it speaks to specific scientific constructs was met with theological answers.
If you say the Bible (or any text) “says” xxxx, you MUST quote it in its original language, else you have no idea what it “says.”
Simple for people who understand logic.
And the argument you are making was not made by him. I am sure he is happy to have you pick up his forensic failure, but if I was him I would be embarrassed by the implication he can’t fight his own fight.
What puts you in a position to feel that you're qualified to straighten out everyone's thinking on science who disagrees with you?
By your own admission, you don't have a degree or any job experience in scientific fields, hence we can safely conclude that you don't know what you're talking about when speaking on scientific matters.
Pretty much, thats one of the main tools out of the evolutionists playbook.
simple I believe Gods word is inspired by God which is the KJV, do you think God is not smart enough to give us his word we can’t read?
All youv’e demonstrated so far is that you worship at the altar of evolutionism.
You assume too much. But then again, it would be so much harder to try to discredit creationism if you couldn't make creationists look like extremists of some kind.
Even if it implies it, that doesn't raise it to the level that he actually SAID it, and therefore your demand that he support a contention that you claim he made because you thought he implied it is ludicrous.
BTW, courtesy ping to those about whom fd is referring but failing to ping, himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.