Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

  1. #1
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,398
    Amen (Given)
    1705
    Amen (Received)
    4561

    Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

    This is a commentary thread for the discussion/debate between Tyrel and Paprika on whether the Bible claims itself to be inerrant. The participants may not post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate, but anybody else may discuss the debate here.
    "Technology has, in an enhanced way, given mockers a platform to set society on fire with polarizing speech. Internet culture privileges those whose insults are click bait." - Timothy Keller

  2. #2
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,430
    Amen (Given)
    11856
    Amen (Received)
    25260
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. #3
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,107
    Amen (Given)
    431
    Amen (Received)
    945
    This is nuts:

    Opening statements: 1000 words each.
    Rebuttals: 500 words each.
    Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 300 words each.
    Closing statements: 400 words each.

  4. #4
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Slap, you are not allowed to post here

  5. #5
    Professor Catholicity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the neighbor of the yellow brick road
    Faith
    Ecumenical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,079
    Amen (Given)
    1138
    Amen (Received)
    1634
    Quote Originally Posted by lao tzu View Post
    This is nuts:

    Opening statements: 1000 words each.
    Rebuttals: 500 words each.
    Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 300 words each.
    Closing statements: 400 words each.
    Not your debate. Its theirs...
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

  6. #6
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,107
    Amen (Given)
    431
    Amen (Received)
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Catholicity View Post
    Not your debate. Its theirs...
    "It's" their debate. And this is our commentary thread.

    You're free to disagree with me. Of course, you're also free to disagree with Tyrel, who has likewise noted the issue in his opening. The format stinks, and they should agree to a change before the real action begins in the rebuttals, which should, by rights, allow longer word counts than the openings in order to both answer their correspondent's statements and to expand on their own positions.

    As ever, Jesse

  7. #7
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Good job on the opening by Tyrel. He did a good job of exposing the idea that something can't be taught if there isn't an explicit verse using our favoured word. That idea leads to the ridiculous argument that Jesus was silent on homosexuality (He wasn't) and even if He were, we couldn't know His position.

    Perhaps Paprika will surprise me.

  8. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    415
    Amen (Given)
    222
    Amen (Received)
    45
    It seems doubtful that the author of proverbs 30:6 intended it to be added to God's word.

    On a side note, I've been watching a few debates recently and I find it to be much more informative when the debaters are each given a period of time to directly question the other debater. I'm not sure how well that would work in written format, but perhaps something like the 1st rebuttals the first person asks a question, the second answers and asks their own question, and then back and forth for a set number of questions.
    "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

  9. #9
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1575
    Debates are more effective when each party has to argue both sides of a question. That better allows one to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments and objections for both positions.
    Last edited by robrecht; 02-24-2014 at 04:22 AM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  10. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  11. #10
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Soyeong View Post
    On a side note, I've been watching a few debates recently and I find it to be much more informative when the debaters are each given a period of time to directly question the other debater. I'm not sure how well that would work in written format, but perhaps something like the 1st rebuttals the first person asks a question, the second answers and asks their own question, and then back and forth for a set number of questions.
    I like this idea. If nothing else, the participants can flesh out their views beyond the narrow focus of the debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paprika View Post
    Before we return to θεόπνευστος, I must point out an essential hermeneutical principle. If more than one valid interpretation is allowed by a text (by the grammar, the diction, the context, etc.), it is quite all right to single one out and say that it is a valid interpretation. But to say that the text establishes one of these interpretations without using additional data (whether it be another Scripture, lexical data from other texts, studies on a certain grammatical construction and so on) to disconfirm other valid interpretations or confirm the preferred interpretation is to beg the question.
    Well said.
    I'm not here anymore.

  12. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •