Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Jerry, In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Jerry,

      In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of stuff. That is, that it teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

      As a result, it is your position that if something is more than a few thousand years old, the Bible is wrong.

      As I indicated earlier, and as indicated in the subject header of this thread, that appears to be the AP position; one implication of which is atheism inasmuch as it is argued that the God of the Bible cannot exist if his word, the Bible, is errant.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ----------------Jerry's Message--------------

      From: Jerry McDonald
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:08 PM

      Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

      (excerpts)
      
      > Jerry, would you agree that the
      > interpretation could be wrong?

      JM

      Well I guess just about anything is possible, but it aint. :)

      RB

      > Is there more than one way to
      > determine if the interpretation
      > is wrong?

      > Jerry, would you agree that one way
      > of determining if the interpretation
      > of a text is wrong is to consider the
      > real world evidence, independent of
      > the text, regarding the age of stuff?

      JM

      Certainly.

      RB

      > Jerry, if some thing(s) really are
      > more than a few thousand years
      > old, would you agree that the
      > interpretation of the text otherwise
      > (e.g., "nothing is more than a few
      > thousand years old") is wrong;
      > regardless of whether or not anyone
      > knows the correct interpretation?

      JM

      No, Robert, when the Bible is so clear on the matter as it is on this issue, there really is no other way of interpreting it.

      Todd will tell you that.

      Even he understands that if the Biblical account of six 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago is errant, then the Bible is wrong.

      You can add and subtract all you want, but you won't make the text say anything other than what it says. Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptism is for the remission of sins. There simply is no other way to interpret that. You can add to it, you can take away from it, but you cannot squeeze a different interpretation on it--not legitimately anyway.

      RB

      > Alternatively, if the text really teaches
      > that nothing is more than a few
      > thousand years old, and some thing(s)
      > really are more than a few thousand
      > years old, what does that prospect say
      > about God and the text?

      JM

      1 It would either show that the data of real world evidence was in error, or

      2. it would show that the text was in error.

      jdm

      -----------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------------




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jerry McDonald
      While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.  General
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.  General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.  All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.  I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
        jdm




        ________________________________
        From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 3:24:19 PM
        Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

         
        Jerry,

        In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of stuff. That is, that it teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

        As a result, it is your position that if something is more than a few thousand years old, the Bible is wrong.

        As I indicated earlier, and as indicated in the subject header of this thread, that appears to be the AP position; one implication of which is atheism inasmuch as it is argued that the God of the Bible cannot exist if his word, the Bible, is errant.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ------------ ----Jerry' s Message----- ---------

        From: Jerry McDonald
        To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:08 PM

        Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

        (excerpts)
        
        > Jerry, would you agree that the
        > interpretation could be wrong?

        JM

        Well I guess just about anything is possible, but it aint. :)

        RB

        > Is there more than one way to
        > determine if the interpretation
        > is wrong?

        > Jerry, would you agree that one way
        > of determining if the interpretation
        > of a text is wrong is to consider the
        > real world evidence, independent of
        > the text, regarding the age of stuff?

        JM

        Certainly.

        RB

        > Jerry, if some thing(s) really are
        > more than a few thousand years
        > old, would you agree that the
        > interpretation of the text otherwise
        > (e.g., "nothing is more than a few
        > thousand years old") is wrong;
        > regardless of whether or not anyone
        > knows the correct interpretation?

        JM

        No, Robert, when the Bible is so clear on the matter as it is on this issue, there really is no other way of interpreting it.

        Todd will tell you that.

        Even he understands that if the Biblical account of six 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago is errant, then the Bible is wrong.

        You can add and subtract all you want, but you won't make the text say anything other than what it says. Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptism is for the remission of sins. There simply is no other way to interpret that. You can add to it, you can take away from it, but you cannot squeeze a different interpretation on it--not legitimately anyway.

        RB

        > Alternatively, if the text really teaches
        > that nothing is more than a few
        > thousand years old, and some thing(s)
        > really are more than a few thousand
        > years old, what does that prospect say
        > about God and the text?

        JM

        1 It would either show that the data of real world evidence was in error, or

        2. it would show that the text was in error.

        jdm

        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --
        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        Jerry, ... It wasn t my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Jerry,

          In conclusion, you wrote:

          > I do not believe that the Bible is
          > wrong, I am just saying that your
          > conclusion does not logically follow
          > from the premise.

          It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

          That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

          I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          ---------------Jerry's Message---------------

          From: Jerry McDonald
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

          Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

          While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

          General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

          All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

          I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

          jdm

          ---------------------------------------------
          ---------------------------------------------





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jerry McDonald
          Robert, I didn t say anything about errant gods.   I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Robert, I didn't say anything about "errant gods."  I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove that the source that we thought we had of special revelation from God was not such.  This does not mean that God would be errant.  Don't tell me that we are going to have to get into all this logical fallacy stuff again.
            jdm




            ________________________________
            From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:31:05 PM
            Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

             
            Jerry,

            In conclusion, you wrote:

            > I do not believe that the Bible is
            > wrong, I am just saying that your
            > conclusion does not logically follow
            > from the premise.

            It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

            That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

            I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            ------------ ---Jerry' s Message----- --------- -

            From: Jerry McDonald
            To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
            Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

            Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

            While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

            General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

            All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

            I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

            jdm

            ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
            ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jerry McDonald
            My point is, and always has been, that if God did not create the universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago, then the Bible is wrong.  It is wrong
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              My point is, and always has been, that if God did not create the universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago, then the Bible is wrong.  It is wrong because it is so clearly written that one would have to have help in misunderstanding it.  It is as clear as it is on Acts 2:38.  What would you say that to the Baptist who asked "what if Baptism wasn't for remission of sins?"  Would you say that your interpretation was wrong?  No!  It is clearly written, there is no misunderstanding it.  This is all I am saying.  I do not believe that the Bible is wrong.  I believe that the Bible and science backs up the argument that the universe (and all that it contains) was made in six literal 24 hour days not more than 10,000 years ago.

              It is an either or situation.  Either it is right, or it is wrong.  You can't twist and turn scripture just anytime you wish to make it fit your desired beliefs.
              jdm




              ________________________________
              From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:32:48 PM
              Subject: Re: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

               
              Robert, I didn't say anything about "errant gods."  I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove that the source that we thought we had of special revelation from God was not such.  This does not mean that God would be errant.  Don't tell me that we are going to have to get into all this logical fallacy stuff again.
              jdm

              ____________ _________ _________ __
              From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@webtv. net>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:31:05 PM
              Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

               
              Jerry,

              In conclusion, you wrote:

              > I do not believe that the Bible is
              > wrong, I am just saying that your
              > conclusion does not logically follow
              > from the premise.

              It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

              That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

              I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              ------------ ---Jerry' s Message----- --------- -

              From: Jerry McDonald
              To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

              Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

              While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

              General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

              All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

              I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

              jdm

              ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
              ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Robert Baty
              Jerry, ... Perhaps I ll have more to say about that later. ... Sincerely, Robert Baty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jerry,

                In order to clarify your position, you state:

                > My point is, and always has been,
                > that if God did not create the
                > universe in six literal days a few
                > thousand years ago, then the Bible
                > is wrong.

                Perhaps I'll have more to say about that later.

                For now, consider the followup hypothetical:

                > If the Bible is wrong,
                > then...???

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jerry McDonald
                If the Bible is wrong, then we have no special revelation from God. jdm ________________________________ From: Robert Baty To:
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  If the Bible is wrong, then we have no special revelation from God.
                  jdm




                  ________________________________
                  From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
                  To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:43:57 PM
                  Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                   
                  Jerry,

                  In order to clarify your position, you state:

                  > My point is, and always has been,
                  > that if God did not create the
                  > universe in six literal days a few
                  > thousand years ago, then the Bible
                  > is wrong.

                  Perhaps I'll have more to say about that later.

                  For now, consider the followup hypothetical:

                  > If the Bible is wrong,
                  > then...???

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.