|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) Date: Jul 8, 2008 13:16
> On Jul 5, 9:48 am, "Bill M" bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Your ancient Bibles are not of any values in trying to prove gods existence.
>> There
>> are NO ORIGINALS in existence. We have no evidence of the autthenticity
>> of the avbailable ancient copies. The Bibles are a collection of ancient
>> myths and,
>> fables written by men of unkown creditbility and a known lack of modern
>> scientific
>> knowledge.
>
> Yes, quite true that we do not have the originals -and good thing too!
> For what would men naturally do with such things? They'd deify them!
>
> However, what we do have is beyond any other example. I don't
> have all the facts and figures at my finger tips but generally I know
> it to be true that we have roughly 5000 complete manuscripts of
> the entire Greek New Testament which all are dated prior to
> 200 AD. We have several individual manuscripts of NT books ...
|
| Show full article (1.93Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Stan-OStan-O Date: Jul 8, 2008 13:29
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:32:52 -0500, duke cox.net> wrote:
>>That's about like all of the witnesses who claim to have "seen" UFOs,
>>bigfoot, etc...
>
>Wow, you think? Remember, not only were there eye witnesses, but the Holy
>Scripture is a lot about their sightings.
...and it's been shown time and again that none of these "witnesses"
seem to be able to get their story straight.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RalphRalph Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:00
> On Jul 7, 7:28 pm, "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote:
> Reply: None of the gospels were written by the authors claimed by the
> Christian church. Do a little research before you run off at the
> mouth.
> There is not the first main line scholar who thinks the gospels were
> written
> by those to which they were attributed.
>
>
> WRONG!
> Robin Lane Fox,of Oxford,believes John was indeed written by
> the apostle,and he's a ATHEIST.
>
> Check out his book
> THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION
|
| Show full article (0.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lsenderslsenders Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:18
On Jul 7, 6:24 pm, "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>Yes, quite true that we do not have the originals -and good thing too!
>>For what would men naturally do with such things? They'd deify them!
>
> As you have with the copies.
>
How so? I don't know anyone who worships his bible. I rarely
find anyone who reads it! But does historical Christianity hold
to sola scriptura? Yes, except for primarily the "catholic"
denominations who cannot because of their system of
ecclesiastical government. Reformed Protestantism holds the
bible as its final authoritative until the return of Christ. It is
our standard in which everything else is judged and verified,
including all traditions, creeds and confessions.
What is your standard?
>
>>However, what we do have is beyond any other example. I don't
>>have all the facts and figures at my finger tips but generally I know
>>it to be true that we have roughly...
|
| Show full article (4.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lsenderslsenders Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:28
On Jul 7, 6:37 pm, Christopher A. Lee optonline.net> wrote:>
> Fundamentalists live in their own alternate reality with its own
> meanings for words. One of which is "Scholar".
>
"Fundamentalist." Now, exactly, what is your definition? Can
you even list the "fundamentals" and in so doing, which is it
that you take except to?
I'm a student of Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Owen and the
like. I have taught specifically the WCF noting only minor
differences. Fundamentalism holds to TULIP mostly, at least
until the last 60-80 yrs where their has been a wide movement
away from "Calvinism" toward the Remonstrant school. But
in dispensational scholastic circles, TULIP is still fairly tightly
held when the atonement issue is fairly discussed and defined.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lsenderslsenders Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:36
On Jul 6, 12:30 am, "Karl Johanson" wrote:
>
> Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and
> refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty
> years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated
> in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a
> regular basis:
>
I made the point because it was such a point with NASA. I have not
followed CRI or others in their discussions on this point. That NASA
spent how many millions of dollars in 1960 money on the rover tires,
is evidence enough that the majority of scientist at that time
calculated
a heavy layer of dust based on a very old universe. I remember
watching the whole thing on tv. Like many boys at that time...
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lsenderslsenders Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:39
On Jul 6, 12:36 am, "Karl Johanson" wrote:
>
> "Wonderful things", like the notion that women should never instruct men.
>
Both culture and context. You seem to have little appreciation of
their
importance.
>
> That it's okay to steel other people's livestock. That you should kill
> disrespectful children. That it's okay to whip people (and their livestock)
> for having a church bazaar...
>
You confuse Mosaic Law with the NT Gospel. The ML was given
to train minds to think antithetically. It was a tutor for young
school children. Follow the Pauline discourse.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RalphRalph Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:41
hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:620e0035-e4d5-4366-a0b8-c057531315be@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 6:24 pm, "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, quite true that we do not have the originals -and good thing too!
>>For what would men naturally do with such things? They'd deify them!
>
> As you have with the copies.
>
How so? I don't know anyone who worships his bible. I rarely
find anyone who reads it! But does historical Christianity hold
to sola scriptura? Yes, except for primarily the "catholic"
denominations who cannot because of their system of
ecclesiastical government. Reformed Protestantism holds the
bible as its final authoritative until the return of Christ. It is
our standard in which everything else is judged and verified,
including all...
|
| Show full article (2.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RalphRalph Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:50
hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27fbb5b7-5353-441d-be50-607839841ede@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 12:30 am, "Karl Johanson" wrote:
>
> Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and
> refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to
> twenty
> years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be
> propagated
> in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on
> a
> regular basis:
>
I made the point because it was such a point with NASA. I have not
followed CRI or others in their discussions on this point. That NASA
spent how many millions of dollars in 1960 money on the rover tires,
is evidence enough that the majority of scientist at that time
calculated
a heavy layer of dust based on a very old universe. I remember
watching the whole thing on tv. Like many boys at that time, I had ...
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RalphRalph Date: Jul 8, 2008 14:55
hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37a299b4-a63c-4932-a04f-19ded95b5c95@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 6:37 pm, Christopher A. Lee optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Fundamentalists live in their own alternate reality with its own
> meanings for words. One of which is "Scholar".
>
"Fundamentalist." Now, exactly, what is your definition? Can
you even list the "fundamentals" and in so doing, which is it
that you take except to?
I'm a student of Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Owen and the
like. I have taught specifically the WCF noting only minor
differences. Fundamentalism holds to TULIP mostly, at least
until the last 60-80 yrs where their has been a wide movement
away from "Calvinism" toward the Remonstrant school. But
in dispensational scholastic circles, TULIP is still fairly tightly
held when the atonement issue is fairly discussed and defined.
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
