Post Reply
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Once Saved, Always Saved?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2012 - 10:01AM #41
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 20, 2012 -- 3:14AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jack:


"I haven't commented on any suppose errors because you haven't come up with yet.  Do you have any?" 


The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands. 


NAMCHUCK:  The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands.


JACK: As I recall, you've talked a lot "about" such contradictions, but I don't recall you ever spelling one out.  But, okay, go ahead, compare Genesis one and two and demonstrate your most egregious contradiction. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 4:55AM #42
Namchuck
Posts: 11,707

Jun 21, 2012 -- 10:01AM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 20, 2012 -- 3:14AM, Namchuck wrote:



Jack:


"I haven't commented on any suppose errors because you haven't come up with yet.  Do you have any?" 


The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands. 




NAMCHUCK:  The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands.


JACK: As I recall, you've talked a lot "about" such contradictions, but I don't recall you ever spelling one out.  But, okay, go ahead, compare Genesis one and two and demonstrate your most egregious contradiction. 





Oh, no, Jack, I gave you an example of an obvious contradiction in the Bible to which you were unable to respond with anything other than some pathetic sophistry about ancient writing styles.


But it's okay, I know how blind you inerrantists can be.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 7:07AM #43
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 23, 2012 -- 4:55AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jun 21, 2012 -- 10:01AM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 20, 2012 -- 3:14AM, Namchuck wrote:



Jack:


"I haven't commented on any suppose errors because you haven't come up with yet.  Do you have any?" 


The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands. 




NAMCHUCK:  The error-contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation have been clearly identified. The best you could come up with was the vacuous argument from literary style. While the two, but contradictory, accounts certainly demonstrate differing writing styles - nuances of phraseology and word use - that hardly excuses or explains the contradiction.


Once again, and without even drawing upon countless other examples, my claim that the Bible is not inerrant stands.


JACK: As I recall, you've talked a lot "about" such contradictions, but I don't recall you ever spelling one out.  But, okay, go ahead, compare Genesis one and two and demonstrate your most egregious contradiction. 





Oh, no, Jack, I gave you an example of an obvious contradiction in the Bible to which you were unable to respond with anything other than some pathetic sophistry about ancient writing styles.


But it's okay, I know how blind you inerrantists can be.


In spite of all of your blustering, I believe anyone who can read can see in this exchange that you still haven't come up with any.   


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 4:26PM #44
Namchuck
Posts: 11,707

Jun 23, 2012 -- 7:07AM, five_point_dad wrote:



In spite of all of your blustering, I believe anyone who can read can see in this exchange that you still haven't come up with any.   



Smile On the contrary, Jack!


I've had emails from plenty of people who fully recognise your inerrantist blindness to the blatant reverse sequence contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. Your living in dreams.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 5:46PM #45
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 23, 2012 -- 4:26PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 23, 2012 -- 7:07AM, five_point_dad wrote:



In spite of all of your blustering, I believe anyone who can read can see in this exchange that you still haven't come up with any.   



 On the contrary, Jack!


I've had emails from plenty of people who fully recognise your inerrantist blindness to the blatant reverse sequence contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. Your living in dreams.


Are you still hoping that no one noticed that you still haven't had any substance, just blustering?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 6:21PM #46
Namchuck
Posts: 11,707

Jun 23, 2012 -- 5:46PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 23, 2012 -- 4:26PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jun 23, 2012 -- 7:07AM, five_point_dad wrote:



In spite of all of your blustering, I believe anyone who can read can see in this exchange that you still haven't come up with any.   



 On the contrary, Jack!


I've had emails from plenty of people who fully recognise your inerrantist blindness to the blatant reverse sequence contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. Your living in dreams.




Are you still hoping that no one noticed that you still haven't had any substance, just blustering?




Wink Ha...I'm not concerned about that at all. Objective students of the Bible are aware of the blatant contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation.


The insightful ones will also recognise the accusations of "blustering" as projections on your part. That's as obvious as the contradiction at issue. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 8:13PM #47
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 23, 2012 -- 6:21PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 23, 2012 -- 5:46PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 23, 2012 -- 4:26PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jun 23, 2012 -- 7:07AM, five_point_dad wrote:



In spite of all of your blustering, I believe anyone who can read can see in this exchange that you still haven't come up with any.   



 On the contrary, Jack!


I've had emails from plenty of people who fully recognise your inerrantist blindness to the blatant reverse sequence contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. Your living in dreams.




Are you still hoping that no one noticed that you still haven't had any substance, just blustering?




Ha...I'm not concerned about that at all. Objective students of the Bible are aware of the blatant contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation.


The insightful ones will also recognise the accusations of "blustering" as projections on your part. That's as obvious as the contradiction at issue. 


Obviously, you are very concerned about.  This was the fourth time I asked you to produce a suppose contradiction and the fourth time you won't, or can't!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 8:16PM #48
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:53PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:34PM, five_point_dad wrote:


JACK: No, I'm perfectly serious.  Again, you've stated your opinion, but you offer nothing to back it up.  If at any time you wish to present anything to substantiate your claim, I'd like to read it. 





No, you have shown that you're not serious at all, something which is identified by your sorry attempt to explain away the contradiction in the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis as simply a matter of writing style.


So, my claim stands. The Bible is not an inerrant book.


 



If you really think that, then why don't you produce an alleged contradiction?  Do you honestly think I'm the only who has noticed you haven't done that? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 11:21PM #49
Namchuck
Posts: 11,707

Jun 23, 2012 -- 8:16PM, five_point_dad wrote:


If you really think that, then why don't you produce an alleged contradiction?  Do you honestly think I'm the only who has noticed you haven't done that? 



What are you waffling about, Jack!?


Anyone with the ability and can be bothered to read can see for themselves that Genesis 1 has humans created last while Genesis II has them created before the plants and animals. There are plenty of other discrepancies between the two accounts as well, but the contradiction is obvious and no silly and sophistic invoking of styles is going to be able to explain it away. 







Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2012 - 5:57AM #50
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,613

Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:21PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jun 23, 2012 -- 8:16PM, five_point_dad wrote:


If you really think that, then why don't you produce an alleged contradiction?  Do you honestly think I'm the only who has noticed you haven't done that? 



What are you waffling about, Jack!?


Anyone with the ability and can be bothered to read can see for themselves that Genesis 1 has humans created last while Genesis II has them created before the plants and animals. There are plenty of other discrepancies between the two accounts as well, but the contradiction is obvious and no silly and sophistic invoking of styles is going to be able to explain it away. 











JACK: In Genesis 1:11-12 fruit bearing trees and plants were created on the 3rd day while man was created on the 6th day (1:27-31).  In Genesis 2:1, it says God's creation was completed.  So, where in Genesis two is that contradicted?  If it is so obvious, you shouldn't have any trouble pointing it out. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook