MWF
Yep.
"My Bible in my hand has 66 books in it . . . I acknowledge that there
is dispute as to what should and should not be "included" in the Bible "
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: The point in dispute is what is to be included IN the
Bible - not what composes these books (the contents). I disagree with you,
Michael - maybe we are misinterpreting each other.
DAVE
Hmmmm, please show me where. I "admitted" not having a good grasp on the
process of canonization. I also have no idea how Edison made the light
bulb, but I use it every day -
MWF
First, you don't use Edisons light bulb.
Second, light bulb is a functional entity, and it does not function if
it is not complete. No filament, no light. No degassing, no light. No or
inadequate seal, soon no light. Improper contacts, no light. Etc. etc.
I.e., every light you use is either complete--or it doesn't work.
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: Fine. Your point?
DAVE
--it is nonsense on your part to infer that one
cannot "know" something just because one doesn't "know" how that something
came into existence.
MWF
It is an utter lack of any ability to think at all on your part that
leads you to the conclusion that Ralph isn't making a point.
Since in order to make sense of, or at least render palatable, many
parts of the bible, you have to recruit other passages to "interpret" the
problem passage, oh like Luke 6:30 or Ex 22:15-17 and Deut. 22:23-24, then if
you don't have ALL the scripture, you could be misinterpreting, or altogether
missing a critical part of Gods law.
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: Agreed. Just like your light bulb.
Michael
Just the part you need for salvation.
Ralph
You have been trying for many months, dishonestly, to imply that we must
accept that the entire Bible (however many books it is supposed to contain
- and you admit you don't even know how many) is either completely true or
completely false. In logic this is known as a "false dilemma." It is very
common with bibliolators. Is the Toronto telephone directory completely
true or completely false? If you encounter just one error in it, does that
mean that you call the entire book "false?"
(DAVE 5/22) Ralph: No, of course not. So are you arguing that the Bible
could have an error or two but still be right about some things? It seems
so. If so, then how about the only issue that matters and that you
continually dodge, the existence of Yahweh, and the truths put forth in the
Bible concerning the atonement of mankind?
MWF
Gee Dave, you can't accuse ME of dodging that issue.
However, YOU most certainly seem to try VERY hard to avoid talking
about it with me.
Why is that Dave?
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: Don't think so highly of yourself Michael to think
that I have given one moment's consideration to avoiding you. However, if I
was, there are two very simple reasons why: (a) No one except you is foolish
enough to say God doesn't exist - you are the master of unsubstantiated
assertions - I have little respect for that at all; and (b) When you do
start putting forth your "evidence", I can't understand all the mumbo-jumbo
Latin you keep tossing in - I guess that's how you spin your web, but it
means little to me.
Dave
Is this error or not?
MWF
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--its pure unadulterated
garbage. Nonsense. Superstition. Wishful thinking. Absurd. Stupid.
Yes it is error of the most egregious kind.
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: See - what is there to discuss with you then? You
seem to contradict yourself, Michael - you know, that "burden of proof"
garbage you throw at me all the time. Denial of Yahweh's existence requires
some proof, wouldn't you say? I look forward to seeing it.
Dave
You have stated that you can detect an error or two and still have a
basically correct document - well, let's have an answer. And then a follow-up
question: if it is possible that Yahweh does exist, then by what authority
do you claim Biblical errancy?
MWF
Authority? What authority is necessary to come to a necessary logical
conclusion? All that's required is evidence and logic.
And all the evidence logically examined leads inevitably to the
conclusion that there is no Yahweh, never was, and never will be.
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: I see.
Dave.
Ralph Neilson's? You must either accept or
reject what the Bible says about the existence of [Yahweh] - it can only be
right or wrong - yes that is a logical "all-or-nothing" query. And please, an
honest response.
MWF
It is wrong. Absolutely.
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: One thing, I will say - I admire your honesty.
Ralph
I would have thought that you
were too smart to fall for the phoney "all or nothing" fallacy that
fundamentalist preachers try to promote about the Bible.
(DAVE 5/22) Ralph: Don't jive me Ralph - you never thought I was "too
smart" for anything. However, I would have thought you were too smart to
fall for the ridiculous "we came from nothing" fallacy that Tillian atheists
try to promote.
MWF
Who said that? I haven't, and Till hasn't.
Setting up straw men Dave?
(DAVE 5/22) Michael: Trying not to.
Regards.
Dave.
"Enough awareness invaded your consciousness that you realized it was best
to get out of bed, into your clothes and get on with the day...In the same
way, enough of the Person of Christ and his purposes and the needs of the
world must invade our consciousness so that we are able to sleep no
longer...we awake to get on with God's redemptive purposes."
- Bryant