Woe, just a minute. Either the manuscripts we have today are either word for word accurate with the original manuscripts or there is nothing in today's Word of God that we can trust.
Besides doesn't the word of God say that God would preserve his Holy Word?
@daro2096 I don't think you understand translating. When you learn another language you will come to find that "word for word" would make little sense in most situations. This is why the discipline of Textual Criticism is so important when reconstructing the New Testament.
Not that I'm aware of. We use the word "word" interchangeably with speaking or writing. So, did he say his logos or his grapha would not pass away?
Rule #1: Never face away from your audience. It just looks bad. If you need to read from a power point slide do it from your laptop so you don't have your back to the people you are talking to.
1- not true at all. The bible says humans are made from dirt. Genesis 2:7, 3:19 Or that man was made from dirt and woman from his rib. Genesis 2:21 - 24 Depending on which version of Creation you read. Science tells us that the ocean is the womb of life on earth. As neither of us was there to observe the process, let's look and see what humans are really made of: Hmmm... Nearly all salt water and a few minerals. Sea water.
If you think the bible is not a science book, then why do you treat it as though it is? Is this what you used to believe as a christian? This along with a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy?
The Christian faith doesn't rest on any of the points you bring up. If this is what you thought I can understand how you could abandon the faith. You were an immature christian. I believe that the bible rightly interpreted is the word of God. By misrepresenting it you are in no place to test it.
You need to comment on the contents of the video, I will not approve any more off topic comments. I feel I've been gracious enough with this exchange in the comment boxes.
You're assuming a biblical inerrancy called ipsissima verba rather than vox. Not everyone holds to this.( C.S. Lewis was a degree inspirationalist for ex.)
You've said nothing against the hinge of Christianity. Christianity did not come from the NT (which you said nothing about), the NT came out of Christianity. Try watching the video series and then commenting.
BTW Your "good w/out God" week thing is stupid because christianity never says you can't be good w/out God.
@Imaginefree69 That would actually be more in line with part of the lecture. I'd have to watch this again for a refresher on what I said in this particular lecture. But, It matters little.
I would like you to comment on the series as a whole. This way I can better answer arguments that people may have.
Re: 3.20
Woe, just a minute. Either the manuscripts we have today are either word for word accurate with the original manuscripts or there is nothing in today's Word of God that we can trust.
Besides doesn't the word of God say that God would preserve his Holy Word?
daro2096 1 year ago
@daro2096 I don't think you understand translating. When you learn another language you will come to find that "word for word" would make little sense in most situations. This is why the discipline of Textual Criticism is so important when reconstructing the New Testament.
Not that I'm aware of. We use the word "word" interchangeably with speaking or writing. So, did he say his logos or his grapha would not pass away?
stick2truth 1 year ago
Rule #1: Never face away from your audience. It just looks bad. If you need to read from a power point slide do it from your laptop so you don't have your back to the people you are talking to.
daro2096 1 year ago
@daro2096 Thanks for the advice. It was my first time lecturing in this room. I have stopped doing that since watching this video.
stick2truth 1 year ago
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
If the the parts we can verify are false,
how can we rationally rely upon the parts that are not verifiable?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Well, at least you didn't comment on the contents of the video.
Let me run through your little cut & paste ramble in order.
1. evolution says pretty much the same thing.
2. assuming all Jews interpret Scripture literally
3. Lev. is not a scientific list of modern biological categories
4. never says the Earth is flat
5. Do you call the TV stations to complain about the use of the words sunrise and sunset. Phenomenological language.
6. missing the point of Gen 1 & 2
and finally...
stick2truth 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 The bible is not a science book and I never claimed that it was.
You sound a little salty to me! (just a joke)
goo to you through the zoo implies dirt too. Anyway. Missing the point of Gen. 1 & 2. You have very bad hermeneutical skills.
stick2truth 1 year ago
@stick2truth "The bible is not a science book"
True enough.
Yet blatant errors and contradictions
do explode the doctrine of inerrancy,
which is more or less my point.
And, as I said earlier,
If the the parts we can verify are false,
how can we rationally rely upon the parts that are not verifiable?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
If you think the bible is not a science book, then why do you treat it as though it is? Is this what you used to believe as a christian? This along with a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy?
The Christian faith doesn't rest on any of the points you bring up. If this is what you thought I can understand how you could abandon the faith. You were an immature christian. I believe that the bible rightly interpreted is the word of God. By misrepresenting it you are in no place to test it.
stick2truth 1 year ago
You need to comment on the contents of the video, I will not approve any more off topic comments. I feel I've been gracious enough with this exchange in the comment boxes.
Feel free to keep sending private messages.
Thanks for watching.
stick2truth 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 cont.
You're assuming a biblical inerrancy called ipsissima verba rather than vox. Not everyone holds to this.( C.S. Lewis was a degree inspirationalist for ex.)
You've said nothing against the hinge of Christianity. Christianity did not come from the NT (which you said nothing about), the NT came out of Christianity. Try watching the video series and then commenting.
BTW Your "good w/out God" week thing is stupid because christianity never says you can't be good w/out God.
stick2truth 1 year ago
@stick2truth "the NT (which you said nothing about"
Oh, did you want me to discuss the contradictions
in the gospels and the book of Acts?
Such as the contradictory accounts of the crucifixion?
We could do that, if you like.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 That would actually be more in line with part of the lecture. I'd have to watch this again for a refresher on what I said in this particular lecture. But, It matters little.
I would like you to comment on the series as a whole. This way I can better answer arguments that people may have.
stick2truth 1 year ago
I retract my "good w/out God" statement from this post but still hold to the opinion of the concept behind my statement.
It does not belong in this discussion. I apologize. I was in the wrong here for the assumption I made.
stick2truth 1 year ago