Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"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

[midniterider]

Word salad, therefore Jesus.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

51 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Word salad, therefore Jesus.

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. 

[sdelsolray]

Poster LuthAMF is a TULIP wannabe.  This explains much, at least about him.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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. 

 

Well, yes. Quoting sources is fine for either of the debaters. But being a skimmer, I try to find the salient points. Give me the bullet points and a link to the full article if you want. I'm just a lazy TL/DR kinda person.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"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. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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. 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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. 

 

My brother you do not understand the scriptures clearly. The Joseph story was God foreshadowing the saviour to come. It's so perfect and one of the reasons you know that the bible is true. First there is the foreshadowing with Joseph, then the Isiah prophesy. What more do you want? Remember every scripture has a compound meaning and compound revelation.

 

/Christian Hat off

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

My brother you do not understand the scriptures clearly. The Joseph story was God foreshadowing the saviour to come. It's so perfect and one of the reasons you know that the bible is true. First there is the foreshadowing with Joseph, then the Isiah prophesy. What more do you want? Remember every scripture has a compound meaning and compound revelation.

 

/Christian Hat off

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.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

My brother you do not understand the scriptures clearly. The Joseph story was God foreshadowing the saviour to come. It's so perfect and one of the reasons you know that the bible is true. First there is the foreshadowing with Joseph, then the Isiah prophesy. What more do you want? Remember every scripture has a compound meaning and compound revelation.

 

/Christian Hat off

 

That is a can of worms I hope we get around to opening. 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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

[midniterider]

Probably getting the weekly re-inforcement of fear, guilt and shame from his church family. 

[Joshpantera]

If you google framework hypothesis, the first link that comes up is answers in genesis. My guess is that Luth figured out the correspondence issue has been used by some OECist's and given the name framework hypothesis. They then use that to try and make claims about old earth creation. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

 

Quote

The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science. It presents an alternative to

 literalistic interpretations of the Genesis narratives, which are advocated by some conservative Christians and Creationists at a popular level. Creationists who take a literalist approach have laid the charge that Christians who interpret Genesis symbolically or allegorically are assigning science an authority over that of Scripture.^[9] Advocates of the framework view respond by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature (Ps 19, Rom 1:19–20), and therefore in our search for the truth about the origins of the universe we must be sensitive to both the "book of words" (Scripture) and the "book of works" (nature). Since God is the author of both "books", we should expect that they do not conflict with each other when properly interpreted.^[10]. This was also the view of Darwin.^{[citation needed]}

The framework interpretation is rejected by some biblical scholars, such as James Barr, Andrew Steinmann, Robert McCabe, and Ting Wang,^[11] Some systematic theologians also oppose it, including Wayne Grudem^[12] and Millard Erickson,^[13] who deem it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text.

 

It seems to me that he just googled FH, put up the objections by critics from AIG without checking the critics for truth value. So we're now stuck there. The critics are up against trying to deny what it glaring and obvious about the writer of Genesis 1 due their own bias's and trying to defend their own interpretations, which, don't include these obvious aspects of Genesis 1. So denial is the route they take. It's not just a river in Egypt.......

 

Of course this does zero to help out the framework hypothesis itself, which alleges that science and the bible are compatible. It just means that the writer of Genesis obviously laid out a CREATION MYTH according to these obvious correspondences. A creation myth that doesn't reconcile science and the bible at all, correspondence style writing or otherwise. 

 

The same problems still remain. Day's, years, or billions of years before the sun, moon, and stars. It's not as if breaking into phases or triads does anything to reconcile the creation myth with science. And it seems to pin YEC and OEC advocates against one another and the christians carry on eating their own, so to speak. It looks like a rabid mess that does all of zero to show that Genesis 1 is demonstrably "true." 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

If you google framework hypothesis, the first link that comes up is answers in genesis. My guess is that Luth figured out the correspondence issue has been used by some OECist's and given the name framework hypothesis. They then use that to try and make claims about old earth creation. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

 

 

It seems to me that he just googled FH, put up the objections by critics from AIG without checking the critics for truth value. So we're now stuck there. The critics are up against trying to deny what it glaring and obvious about the writer of Genesis 1 due their own bias's and trying to defend their own interpretations, which, don't include these obvious aspects of Genesis 1. So denial is the route they take. It's not just a river in Egypt.......

 

Of course this does zero to help out the framework hypothesis itself, which alleges that science and the bible are compatible. It just means that the writer of Genesis obviously laid out a CREATION MYTH according to these obvious correspondences. A creation myth that doesn't reconcile science and the bible at all, correspondence style writing or otherwise. 

 

The same problems still remain. Day's, years, or billions of years before the sun, moon, and stars. It's not as if breaking into phases or triads does anything to reconcile the creation myth with science. And it seems to pin YEC and OEC advocates against one another and the christians carry on eating their own, so to speak. It looks like a rabid mess that does all of zero to show that Genesis 1 is demonstrably "true." 

 

 

No, Josh, I did not "Just google" FH. I've been exposed to and read on it for years. "Just googling" seems to be the go-to for many though. I prefer independent research. 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

No, Josh, I did not "Just google" FH. I've been exposed to and read on it for years. "Just googling" seems to be the go-to for many though. I prefer independent research. 

 

Ok, my bad. 

 

I just didn't understand how if you were very familiar with it, why you seemed to have no idea why the critics that you posted are so far off the mark. It was as if you'd never considered any of it at all. But that's also because you haven't really told me what YOU think about the content. You're just posting diverse links to apologists and critics. That doesn't let me know what you think, and how you connect all the dots and come up with conclusions. I'm left to wonder if you simply googled the first few apologies that popped up and hap hazard posted that at me to see if any of sticks. 

 

Maybe you could get a little more involved and let us know what you think and why. That would really help the discussion. 

[LogicalFallacy]

The point remains, if the bible is the word of God as proposed by Christina theology then why is there such a mess over it's interpretation? Who's right? AIG? Theologians such as William L Craig who assign a more metaphorical nature to Genesis?

 

And what was the original intent of the writers? Did they intend it to be literal? If that is the case then it is clearly not the inspired word as it conflicts with reality. Or was it all suppose to be metaphorical, in which case God must have known that for most of history from when it was written people would be taking an 'inspired' metaphorical work literary. What a cock up! 

 

If it wasn't for curious people scratching their heads at obvious contradictions in nature when compared to the bible we'd still be thinking 6,000 years ago Eve flirted with a serpent and that's why children die of cancer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

 

KJV all the way Prof. 

[midniterider]

Makes me wonder why supposed 'Christian' bookstore owners sell all these different versions of the bible?

 

KJV is obviously the one true translation But if the bookstore person sells the KJV as well as the Amplified and the NIV and New KJV in his store, then he is suspect.

 

Get thee behind me, bookstore person!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:57 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

 

Doesn't matter. Whatever translation they use they will interpret to agree with themselves anyway.

 

Have you ever seen an example of a bible translation ever stopping a Christian from interpreting it using the spirit to guide them?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Doesn't matter. Whatever translation they use they will interpret to agree with themselves anyway.

 

Have you ever seen an example of a bible translation ever stopping a Christian from interpreting it using the spirit to guide them?

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

[Joshpantera]

The whole issue of special biblical knowledge and "true christians" gets so convoluted and trivial. But it's so hard for people stuck in the middle of it to see it. I think it's very hard for them to see the problems with apologetic's too. But not impossible for them to see it. Seeing as how we are all living examples that it is possible to see it and then move on. 

 

I would like to establish some respect for ex christians, if that were possible. They don't have to agree with us, but some respect would be nice. Respect for the fact that we don't simply lay over and accept things that CAN NOT BE PROVEN. And respect for that fact that it's understandable that we don't believe it, given the circumstances. And the debate is squarely aimed at laying out the circumstances. I hold that ex christians are justified in our skepticism. And that our situations are completely reasonable and understandable. 

 

Will we ever be granted that respect? 

 

I don't know. We'll just have to see. 

[LogicalFallacy]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I hold that ex christians are justified in our skepticism. And that our situations are completely reasonable and understandable. 

 

Will we ever be granted that respect? 

 

I don't know. We'll just have to see. 

 

Yes, as opposed to what @crazyguy123 got told by a Christian: "You just hate God and don't want to know the truth". Perhaps if Christians walked in our shoes they'd know how asinine and unhelpful such a statement is. It achieves nothing other to reinforce that Christians make knowledge claims they cannot demonstrate.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, as opposed to what @crazyguy123 got told by a Christian: "You just hate God and don't want to know the truth". Perhaps if Christians walked in our shoes they'd know how asinine and unhelpful such a statement is. It achieves nothing other to reinforce that Christians make knowledge claims they cannot demonstrate.

Well, they haven't actually said that yet, but what I said in Discord was that I suspect it might happen. At the very least, I got my debate opponent to at least recognize the fact that I have investigated their claims, even if I rejected them as being true. I will just have to see how things turn out.