Circular Reasoning
Alan Fuller arfuller@rocketmail.com
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:42:43 -0800 (PST) (00884652163, 19980112184243.9315.rocketmail@web1.rocketmail.com)
---Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net> wrote:
>
> At 12:24 PM 1/9/98 -0800, Alan Fuller wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hi Till,
> >
> >Good question. I have gone through part of the book
> >of Mormon. By the way, I have read the entire
Koran
> >in English. I couldn't find the central issues of
> >existance in either book. If I missed them, maybe
> >you can help me out.
> >
>
> TILL
> You are arbitrarily asserting that discussion of
such issues would be a
> requirement
> of divine inspiration. What is your basis for that
conclusion?
>
FULLER
Who else could know the true answers?
> FULLER
> >Since I didn't find the kind of information the
> >Creator of the Universe would supply, I have
reason
> >to doubt their authenticity.
> >
>
> TILL
> Again, you are assuming that there are certain
kinds of information that the
> creator of the universe would supply in a book that
he inspired. What is
> the basis for your assumption? Are you arguing
that the creator of the
> universe could not inspire a book without supply
the kind of information
> that you would want the book to have?
FULLER
Well, I think the Creator knows his creation wants to
know these things. Who else knows the true answer to
those things? How should He reveal those things?
Should I make rules for Him? In a sense, maybe God
has inspired many books or every book. I don't know.
But the kind of inspiration I am talking about is
inspiration that leads to God in a specific way that
reveals him.
>
> FULLER
> >Besides, there is better archaelogical evidence for
> >the Bible, not that it is required.
> >
>
> TILL
> What archaeological evidence? Please be specific.
I would be glad to show
> you that some information in the Bible is in
conflict with "archaelogical
> evidence." Let me know if you would like to engage
in such discussions.
FULLER
Okay. A specific example. An assumption of Bible
scholars has always been that the synoptic gospels
were written earlier that that of John. The Ryland
fragment of John has been dated to between 100 and
125 CE. This is much earlier than any scholars
thought. So it proves the gospels were written in
the first century. How much can we trust the
opinions of Bible scholars without solid evidence?
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com