Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View Once Saved, Always Saved?
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 12:17AM #71
Namchuck
Posts: 10,821

Jul 2, 2012 -- 6:45PM, five_point_dad wrote:



JACK: It certainly does. 


It does no such thing.


Jack: It's the "result" of everything that has been described before it.  The summary doesn't have to be in the same order.


That is such a weak response, Jack. In fact, it's a non-response. If the use of the word 'toledot' involves a reversal of the creation sequence, then it remains a contradiction that your pathetic sophistry cannot overcome. While nobody is bothered about a rearrangement of a few names, an account that says that plants and animals came before man and another account that says that plants and animals came after man is a glaring contradiction.


JAck: Even when it is used with genealogies, the names are not in the same order.


As said above, nobody is bothered about the reordering of a few names in a genealogy, but if one genealogy completely contradicts another genealogy, then what you have is a contradiction. 'Toledot' is neither an excuse or an explanation for the contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation.


When I started this conversation with you, I actually thought I would have some challenging stuff to read and ponder which I would really enjoy.  So far you are all bluster and not much stubstance.  There are some formidable and challenging passages that I would think you would have latched unto, but you haven't.


You are still playing the projection game, Jack, and you haven't in any coherent way answered the contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. And it is all too obvious just who it that is full of bluster and lacking any substance.


The Bible is not an inerrant book, but that is something, as we've noted before, the Bible never claims for itself. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 3:24PM #72
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,035

Jack: It's the "result" of everything that has been described before it.  The summary doesn't have to be in the same order.


NAMCHUCK: That is such a weak response, Jack. In fact, it's a non-response. If the use of the word 'toledot' involves a reversal of the creation sequence, then it remains a contradiction that your pathetic sophistry cannot overcome. While nobody is bothered about a rearrangement of a few names, an account that says that plants and animals came before man and another account that says that plants and animals came after man is a glaring contradiction.


JACK: Actually, it's a very good response.  It involves the technicalities of the Hebraic idiom.  You simply don't agree with it, that's fine. 


JAck: Even when it is used with genealogies, the names are not in the same order.


NAMCHUCK: As said above, nobody is bothered about the reordering of a few names in a genealogy, but if one genealogy completely contradicts another genealogy, then what you have is a contradiction. 'Toledot' is neither an excuse or an explanation for the contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation.


JACK: Again, just your opinion, and nothing wrong with that.


JACK: When I started this conversation with you, I actually thought I would have some challenging stuff to read and ponder which I would really enjoy.  So far you are all bluster and not much stubstance.  There are some formidable and challenging passages that I would think you would have latched unto, but you haven't.


NAMCHUCK: You are still playing the projection game, Jack, and you haven't in any coherent way answered the contradiction in the Genesis accounts of creation. And it is all too obvious just who it that is full of bluster and lacking any substance.


JACK: I have no idea what the "projection game" is; I'm not one for games.  But I will agree with you on note, there certainly isn't any doubt who's all bluster. 


NAMHCUCK: The Bible is not an inerrant book, but that is something, as we've noted before, the Bible never claims for itself.


JACK: Again, simply your opinion.  Actually, I do believe the Scirpture claims to be inerrant.  (Ps. 12:6: 119:89, 96; Pr. 30:5; Mt. 24:35; Titus 1:2; Hb. 6:18).  Hb. 11:3 is an interesting passage.  I don't regard it as a minor detail, but it is useful as an example of a scientific fact that is affirmed in the Old Testament and one about which the author says that we have knowledge "by faith"' thus, faith here is explicitly said to involve trust in the truthfulness of a scientific and historical fact recorded in the Old Testament. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 5:19PM #73
Namchuck
Posts: 10,821


JACK: I have no idea what the "projection game" is; I'm not one for games.  But I will agree with you on note, there certainly isn't any doubt who's all bluster.


Well, Jack, projections are usually carried out unconsciously, so I'm not surprised that you might have no idea that you are doing it. And I'm glad that you have finally conceded that you are all bluster.


 



JACK: Again, simply your opinion.  Actually, I do believe the Scirpture claims to be inerrant.  (Ps. 12:6: 119:89, 96; Pr. 30:5; Mt. 24:35; Titus 1:2; Hb. 6:18).


None of these passages make reference to the Bible as it stands, as well you know. And they are the kind of expressions of faith that one encounters in all so-called holy books.


  Hb. 11:3 is an interesting passage.  I don't regard it as a minor detail, but it is useful as an example of a scientific fact that is affirmed in the Old Testament and one about which the author says that we have knowledge "by faith"' thus, faith here is explicitly said to involve trust in the truthfulness of a scientific and historical fact recorded in the Old Testament.


Balderdash, Jack. Firstly, what "scientific fact" do you believe that this verse affirms? I've had discussions with Muslims and Hindu's who fish around in their respective 'Holy" books looking for supposed scientific prescience on the part of their authors. And who would be surprised, given the volubility of most of these works, that one might come across something that sounds scientific now and again? This is another game believers like to play, always forgetting, of course, how often their holy tomes get things scientifically wrong. Desperate magic indeed.


And faith, of course, is the transparent admission that one's beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.


 




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 8:29PM #74
five_point_dad
Posts: 3,035

JACK: Again, simply your opinion.  Actually, I do believe the Scirpture claims to be inerrant.  (Ps. 12:6: 119:89, 96; Pr. 30:5; Mt. 24:35; Titus 1:2; Hb. 6:18).



NAMCHUCK: None of these passages make reference to the Bible as it stands, as well you know. And they are the kind of expressions of faith that one encounters in all so-called holy books.


JACK: Actually, they do.  You assume that I know what isn't true.  I thought you would have read them.  My mistake. 


JACK: Hb. 11:3 is an interesting passage.  I don't regard it as a minor detail, but it is useful as an example of a scientific fact that is affirmed in the Old Testament and one about which the author says that we have knowledge "by faith"' thus, faith here is explicitly said to involve trust in the truthfulness of a scientific and historical fact recorded in the Old Testament.


NAMCHUCK: Balderdash, Jack. Firstly, what "scientific fact" do you believe that this verse affirms? I've had discussions with Muslims and Hindu's who fish around in their respective 'Holy" books looking for supposed scientific prescience on the part of their authors. And who would be surprised, given the volubility of most of these works, that one might come across something that sounds scientific now and again? This is another game believers like to play, always forgetting, of course, how often their holy tomes get things scientifically wrong. Desperate magic indeed.


JACK: Do ever come up with any tangible evidence, besides your hot air? 


NAMCHUCK: And faith, of course, is the transparent admission that one's beliefs cannot stand on their own two feet.


JACK: Isn't that the truth.  As I've often said, I don't have the faith required to be an evolutionist.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 10:39PM #75
Namchuck
Posts: 10,821

Jul 3, 2012 -- 8:29PM, five_point_dad wrote:



JACK: Actually, they do.  You assume that I know what isn't true.  I thought you would have read them.  My mistake.


No, they don't. And I am familiar with the passages cited, which is why I know that they do not speak about the Bible.


 



JACK: Isn't that the truth.  As I've often said, I don't have the faith required to be an evolutionist.


It doesn't take faith to be an "evolutionist", just data and evidence, of which there is an abundance. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Bible is inerrant, but plenty to the contrary.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2012 - 9:13PM #76
Rgurley4
Posts: 7,946

Back on point...start with pages 1-5....

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2012 - 2:29AM #77
Namchuck
Posts: 10,821

Jul 27, 2012 -- 9:13PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


Back on point...start with pages 1-5....




There is no point, so don't bother.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Mar 21, 2014 - 5:48PM #78
Ladybug1969
Posts: 2
Once saved always saved!
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 month ago  ::  Mar 22, 2014 - 5:44PM #79
teilhard
Posts: 48,399

Better yet, "Once saved, always INVESTED ..."

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

    Beliefnet On Facebook