Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[Adrift]

Well, for one thing it isn't self evidently true. For another, time can not both flow from the perspective of one within it, and be static from the perspective of one outside it. Thats the dilemma I'm asking for clarity on from those of you who assert it.

No one here asserted that. To the contrary, Rational Gaze stated, "He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation."

[JonathanL]

Well, for one thing it isn't self evidently true. For another, time can not both flow from the perspective of one within it, and be static from the perspective of one outside it. Thats the dilemma I'm asking for clarity on from those of you who assert it.

Well, seeing as I hold to the A-theory of time (I believe like RG that it is, if not self-evidently true, atleast prima facie a much more reasonable belief to hold than a B-theory of time) I don't believe that "time flows from the perspective of one within it, but is static from the perspective of one outside it", and RG doesn't seem to believe it either.

[JimL]

No one here asserted that. To the contrary, Rational Gaze stated, "He was timeless sans creation, but entered into time with creation."

What does that even mean to say that god entered into time? Do you mean to assert that gods timeless nature changed, that he not only created the temporal aspect of the universe, but became one with it? Because to say that god is timeless himself, but that he is in time, doesn't really make sense afaics.

[Tassman]

I know what inerrancy means. To believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" is not synonymous with belief that the Bible is without error. I repeat, there are people on this very forum who believe that scripture is given by inspiration of God who do not consider themselves inerrantists.

Exactly as I said. Again: “All Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God; not all Christians are inerrentists as per the proper definition of inerrancy.

More or less correct.

Gee thanks!

You'll find plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who will say that they do not believe that scripture is inspired, and the definition of inerrancy isn't hammered into stone either.

Yes! Just as I said!

As for ”inerrancy not being hammered into stone”, it is sufficiently rigid to demand that scriptural “divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”

More or less correct. I'm not really sure why you're repeating back to me what I've been telling you, but at least something seems to be getting through.

It is you repeating back to me what I've been telling you, oh patronising one.

However, I'm sure there's a number of inerrantists out there who also believe the creation narrative is literally true (though that's probably not so common)

I think you mean that “there are a number of NON-inerrantists out there who also believe the creation narrative is literally true. But why would they believe that when the science demonstrates that they are wrong?

I've already replied to this. "True scholarship" (whatever that is), does, in fact, often begin with a number of accepted premises.

Your answer was wrong. The “accepted premises” must have been first verified and tested and shown to be true. “True scholarship” does NOT begin with the unverified assumption that everything in the bible is literally true.

So you've said. I replied with, "I couldn't find an adherence to the doctrine of inerrancy in Gateway's mission statement, but, again, even if it did, it's not problematic as I've already demonstrated."

I repeat: Gateway Seminary is under the auspices of the Convention of Baptist Churches. Hence it must commit to inerrancy. From the Convention’s Mission Statement: “We stand together in the truth of God’s inerrant Word, celebrating the faith once for all delivered to the saints...” Yes it IS "problematic".

If you don't believe me, we can put it to a survey to see if other people see you as a genetic fallacist. I don't believe that this is just my observation of you. Perhaps if you see how other people see you, you'll come to rethink your position on the subject. Also, as previously stated, "true scholarship" (whatever that is) does in fact start with a number of established premises.

Ah, your favourite trick. Call for a vote on a theological web site to see if the atheist is right or wrong. You’re such a card Adrift.

You are wrong by definition. It is not a genetic fallacy to object to an argument on valid grounds such as here. Namely, objecting to an argument based upon a faith statement rather than demonstrably true facts.

Incorrect. As I've already quoted from Sailhamer, "Each generation must ask how the Bible fits into its world. Yet if we are to understand Genesis 1 correctly, we must first read it on its own terms--without attempting to reconcile it with current scientific views. The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost in an attempt to harmonize them with modern science. When we know what the biblical view is, only then can we attempt to correlate it with science."

What you’ve quoted from Sailhamer demonstrates exactly what I’m saying, namely “The full, rich, theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 must not be lost” to mere scientific facts. In short, faith-beliefs come first and science must fit in with these beliefs.

So you say. Sailhamer, an actual eminent Old Testament scholar says that it can be understood in a way that does not undercut our current scientific understanding.

He says more than that. He’s very clearly putting beliefs based upon scripture ahead of scientific facts. A literal belief in the creation narratives of Genesis does undercut scientific knowledge. This is why so many inerrantist Christians have such a negative view of science.

As I previously stated, the Genesis narrative is not man-centered. It's God centered. I do agree that the author/s of Genesis likely had no idea what the universe consisted of or had little idea about how it functioned.

This does not alter the fact that it is factually wrong.

Most of this reply you wrote was you either doubling down on what you had already stated, and I had already replied to, or it was you repeating back to me my argument to you (which was a bit unnecessary). If you have something new to add to the conversation except more "nuh-uh" let me know, otherwise, like most conversations with you, this is quickly getting monotonous.

The reverse is true.

[MaxVel]

Adrift has you pegged, Tassman. You're a textbook genetic fallacist. Interesting that you're willing to put far more effort into trying to discredit a view based on who holds it rather than addressing it itself.

How about doing both for once? Address the actual view itself and who holds it. Bet you won't.

[Tassman]

Adrift has you pegged, Tassman. You're a textbook genetic fallacist. Interesting that you're willing to put far more effort into trying to discredit a view based on who holds it rather than addressing it itself.

There's no genetic fallacy, dummy. What I’m discrediting is a view based upon a premise that can’t be shown to be true, namely biblical inerrancy. It's the unsubstantiated premise that I’m discrediting, not the person who holds it.

[MaxVel]

There's no genetic fallacy, dummy. What I’m discrediting is a view based upon a premise that can’t be shown to be true, namely biblical inerrancy. It's the unsubstantiated premise that I’m discrediting, not the person who holds it.

I knew you couldn't! Thanks for proving my point.

Sailhammer's point rests on the meaning of the Hebrew, something which you very obviously want to avoid discussing, because you have no idea.

Tassman, the intellectual Emperor with no clothes.

[MaxVel]

So is the New Adam, who redeemed mankind from the consequences of the Old Adam’s disobedience, also just "poetry"?



Actually, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories with Jesus as a mythical figure...instead of being a literal history. So it’s not a new phenomenon and it’s a perfectly valid position to take given the evidence...or lack thereof.

The bolded appears to be a direct, unattributed quote from here: http://mythikismos.gr/?cat=4

just after the section break.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

A shining example of intellectual honesty and rigour, Tassman.

[Adrift]

The bolded appears to be a direct, unattributed quote from here: http://mythikismos.gr/?cat=4

just after the section break.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

A shining example of intellectual honesty and rigour, Tassman.

Nice find. Sad, but not wholly unpredictable. Why not just cite Carrier directly?

[One Bad Pig]

Nice find. Sad, but not wholly unpredictable. Why not just cite Carrier directly?

He may have figured out that we're going to instantly dismiss Carrier because he's not credible (because, well, he's not).

[JimL]

He may have figured out that we're going to instantly dismiss Carrier because he's not credible (because, well, he's not).

More and more Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Jesus is mythological historocity. I'm no scholar, and I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.

[Adrift]

He may have figured out that we're going to instantly dismiss Carrier because he's not credible (because, well, he's not).

Yeah, but at least we actually engage with the arguments instead of simply attacking the source as non-credible.

[Adrift]

More and more Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Jesus is mythological historocity. I'm no scholar, and I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.

Where'd you hear that?

[Cerebrum123]

Where'd you hear that?

I'm guessing Robert Price said it somewhere.

[One Bad Pig]

Because I'm no scholar, I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.

Fixed that for you.