Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: George Reid <george.reid1@ntlworld.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906104905.J94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020906183353.A17895@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > > Oh. So no argument is forthcoming. I am not the one throwing out claims > > of conspiracy theories and asserting that every translation of the Bible > > is corrupt. > > No, but you are the one using the Bible to justify your arguments without > explaining why it can be used to do so. Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread. I have offered plenty of arguments for why I think the Bible should be believed. To sum it up, it goes something like this: Without a reliable supernatural revelation from God, no arguments, reasoning, science, ethics, human freedom, etc. would even be intelligible. The preconditions of rationally arguing anything require objective standards of logic and ethics which are only intelligible on a theistic worldview in which God reveals those objective standards through supernatural revelation. > > > *You* are the one making the claims that are in opposition to > > the majority consensus of Hebrew and Greek scholars that have given us a > > plethora of translations which all just happen to teach the same doctrine > > of hell. > > Perhaps I should remind you that Copernicus suggested an idea that went > against the majority of philosophical and religious thought at the time. > Was he wrong? (Copernicus and I are independent) No, but at least he had some evidence to back up his claims. You have yet to offer anything but bare assertions. > > As such, the burden of proof is on *you*. You are the one > > asserting that the majority opinion is in error. That is a case which > > you have not even attempted to make, much less proven. > > Nor have you made the case that the majority opinion is correct. Why should I need to? All you are doing is asking people to take your word for it over the majority opinion. I never claimed that the majority opinion is de-facto correct by definition, but if you want to challenge it, *you* are going to have to do the work, not expect me to defend it against arguments which you haven't even proffered. > Give me > something to refute and reply or don't bother, remove me from the CC: line > and stop wasting my time! You haven't bothered to back up any of the > statements that you've made and I don't see why I should expend my time > doing the same if it's too much effort for you. Yeesh! If you think you are wasting your time, then by all means you are free to go. I'm not holding you here. Why are you being such a hypocrite? > You've made the first move by bringing the subject up. I have expressed > interest in debating the subject (and I am honestly interested in it) but > you seem uninterested in doing so. How can I refute specific claims that > you haven't made? So far the debate extends to "Hell exists" and "I don't > believe so, what makes you think that it does?". Your court. Ball. In. Et tu! If you were honestly interested, you would have offered your arguments. Why in the world would you *want* to refute claims that have not been made? Everything you keep throwing at me is applicable to you. Here's my argument: The vast majority of scholars agree that the traditional translation is the correct translation. That doesn't mean they all believe in hell, just that what appears in our English translation of the Bible is a faithful translation from the original languages. You have two options here: 1) Refute the claim that the vast majority of scholars are in agreement on the way it has traditionally been translated. 2) Refute the standard translation. I don't see why you are not comprehending this. > > Hint: Look at Matt 5:22,29,30, Matt 10:28, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15,33, Mark > 9:45,47, Luke 12:5, James 3:6, 2 Peter 2:4 (I'll grant you that this last > one is more difficult than the rest). Okay, this is a start. Now begin with Matt 5:22 and make your case. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020906104905.J94577-100000>