TheRedneckProfessor

LuthAMF 9 Posted May 21 Love...absolutely LOVE the psychoanalysis. Staying power? I just may become legendary here. This "battle" has raged from time immemorial. Think a few minutes matter? It appears our resident "legend" has, in fact, tucked tail and run. Hmm...

$1346 of $1560

It never stopped me; but, of course, I always used the correct translation: The New Jerusalem bible, endorsed by St. Peter himself. But yours today!!! https://www.amazon.com/New-Jerusalem-Bible-Study/dp/0232520771/ref=asc_df_0232520771/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312025907670&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6858507552101525788&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9009952&hvtargid=pla-561237149696&psc=1

I wonder if Luth and christforums are both using the same translation.

Damn it, @LogicalFallacy. It's only the word of god if it's the right translation. Pay attention, son.

jesus is the answer. Which jesus is yet another question, though. But jesus is definitely the answer.

I wonder where Mr. Y'all-Ain't-Finna-Run-Me-Off has run off to.

Oh goody. I can't wait until Josh and Luth get to the whole "he will crush your head and you will bruise his heel" verse in genesis.

The parallelism in genesis also makes sense in light of a certain ancient Hebrew literary device known as "parallelism" (imagine that!). It was essentially telling the same story over and again. Joseph went to Egypt, the king issued a decree to slaughter all newborns, a savior arrived. Was this the old testament or the new testament? It was both, actually. Because the Greek authors of the new testament used parallelism to make the christ myth more appealing to the Jews.

"What other truth do you have aside from the truth of uncertainty, speculation, etc., etc.? You've been given opportunity to provide certainty. So far you've not provided it." Just wait, @Joshpantera, he's going to deliver the oberwhelming historical arguments and evidence he has promised, any minute now.

It's not even his own word salad. It's just copy and paste apologetics from other sources, with few (if any) of his own original thoughts added. He seems fond of giving us overly verbose quotes, and then coming back later and exclaiming, "I never said that," or "I never made such a claim." Yeah, dude, you just quoted somebody else who did. Josh is also quoting sources; but he is sharing bits of his own story and showing us his own interactions with the texts. That is a mark of distinction between a true thinker and a sophomore.

"The historical events described contain a rich treasury of speculative thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophizing" "If we pass on to the contents of our account of the creation, they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction." "Even in the Etruscan and Persian myths, which correspond so remarkably to the biblical account that they must have been derived from it" So, all other cosmologies bear the influence of human invention and human philosophizing, including the Etruscan and Persian myths, which correspond so remarkably, but the biblical account of creation is the ONLY one that is factual and reliably historical. Two words: Special Pleading https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

"As the development of the human family has been from the first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world which this record assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work of God, i.e. a fact of objective truth and reality." Was the creation of Neanderthals and Denisovans, with whom modern humans interbred (evidence of which can be observed in our DNA) also a "work of god" toward the "development of the human family"? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna

"god exists." The opposite is "god does not exist." One problem that I see, without even trying, is that if god is omnipotent, if "all things are possible with god," then god can not exist. It is, therefore, possible for god to not exist, if god exists. This argument starts falling apart before it ever even gets off the ground.