<snip>
>
>(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Agreed. Everytime epistomology or theism etc are brought
>up, the atheist or errantist demands that we stick with "errancy"
>discussions, and therefore avoids the issues. Why is this?
RALPH NIELSEN 4/22
This is one of Dave's dodges. If we were discussing errancy in the Holy
Qur'an or the Book of Mormon, Dave wouldn't insist on taking time out for
"epistemology or theism," he'd be discussing errors and contradictions in
the text of the Qur'an or the Bk of M. And if a Muslim or a Mormon tried to
evade the errancy of his holy book by changing the subjct to
"epistemologyor theism," Dave would see the ruse immediately and cry foul.
DAVE
Since there is a
>creation account in the Bible, creation is admissible as subject material
>for debate on an errancy listing.
RALPH
This is a dodge, Dave, and you know it. But let me hoist you by your own
petard, since you're asking for it. You say there is "a" creation account
in the Bible. OK, Mr. Bible Believer, tell us whether man was created
before or after the animals. There are two creation accounts in Genesis,
haven't you read them? They have been there for centuries.
DAVE
Same with the existence of God [not just any God, but Yahweh, the God of
the Bible. rn].
RALPH
What a blatant dodge! Does Dave believe in Allah, the God who dictated the
inerrant Holy Qur'an? Does Dave believe in the God who inspired the Bk of
M, "the most perfect book ever written," according to Joseph Smith? Of
course not. Dave has a double standard; he can easily see the sliver in the
other fellow's eye, but he can't see the timber in his own (Matthew 7:3-5
Scholar's Version).
DAVE
Same
>with the existence of hell.
RALPH
Dave can't show us anywhere in the Hebrew Bible where there is a hell,
except in dishonest translations like the King James Version. (I except the
book of Daniel, the latest book in the OT, which was influenced by the
Persian belief in an afterlife.)
And Dave can't show us a single person in the OT who died and went to
heaven, either.
DAVE
And with the issue of sin.
RALPH
Yahweh punishes his people for their sins while they are alive. But if you
should up and die on him, he will punish your childen and your children's
children, even unto the third and fourth generation. The best summary of
Yahweh's rewards for virtue and punishments for sin is summarized in
Deuteronomy 28. Why doesn't Yahweh reward the good with eternal life in
heaven? And why doesn't he punish the wicked with a one-way ticket to hell?
The answer is in the Bible, Dave. But Xians like you don't want to see it.
DAVE
And with our
>"purpose" on earth, and our eventual "destiny". And much more.
RALPH
Our purpose on earth and our eventual destiny, according to Yahweh's holy
book, is to live a short while (maybe long enough to see our grandchildren,
if we are good), and then to die and return to the dust from which we are
made. The end is the same for all, good, bad, and indifferent (Eccles.
3:19-20). Your destiny is the grave, Dave. And this is where science and
the Bible agree, for a change.
DAVE
ALL of this
>is addressed in this supposedly errant book, yet you and others wish to
>avoid discussion on them. Why is this? Is there something about these
>issues that troubles you in such a way that you DON'T believe that the Bible
>is necessarily errant about them?
RALPH
Very few Xians are willing to discuss afterlife in the OT because they
DON'T believe what the Bible says.
DAVE
>I disagree with Morgan a little here - saying that the atheist may not want
>to defend such a weak position when it comes to these isssues - they really
>don't have a position to defend at all it seems.
RALPH
The issue of errancy itself is also deliberately misrepresented by wishful
"true believers" like Dave and company. Xians have known for centuries that
the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. I know I have urged you
before to look up Tatian in an encyclopedia, but I haven't heard that you
have done so. You would rather stick your head in the sand than learn the
truth about the Bible.
DAVE
>So these calls to "get back to errancy discussions" are really the ultimate
>dodge - the real issues all of a sudden "don't apply" to biblical inerrancy
>- I wonder why.
RALPH
I have just shown you that Dave and other inerrantists not only dodge the
issue of errancy in the Bible; they dodge nearly all of the other issues as
well.
Ralph Nielsen, member of the Society of Biblical Literature.