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

Re: [apologetics and theology] inerrancy and solecisms

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Lord
    I found something of what I was looking for in regard to help on my question in the following article, though not quite as detailed as I was hoping for. 
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I found something of what I was looking for in regard to help on my question in the following article, though not quite as detailed as I was hoping for.  Perhaps it will be of help to list members:
      http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1263

      There is also a section of solecisms and inerrancy in an essay by Daniel Wallace at:
      http://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism

      I'm told there is also some treatment of the subject in Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible, when I'm able to access a copy I'll look there.

      I'm sorry I could not find the help I was looking for on this list.

      James, were I an opponent of the inspiration of Scriptures and seeking to enter in to a formal debate with another, which would include a set of agreed upon rules, a panel of moderators and formally stated Affirmations and Negatives, I might have an interest in wording a statement in accord with the mutually agreed upon rules of that formal debate procedure.  However, as I was not entering in to a formal debate, but asking a personal query in an informal setting, I'm under no moral compunction to reword a question to suit the whims of one individual before a helpful answer will be provided.  If you had a constructive solution to the issue of solecisms in the text, it would have been useful to provide it instead of wanting to engage in a sideshow issue of how to word a question in a formal debate in a way to suit your liking.  Trying to sweep every instance of solecism in the text under the rug with the magic broom of "scribal error" is intellectually
      dishonest and therefore of no help to me. 

      And, sir, I do know a thing or two about Formal and Informal Logic, including its limitations.  And I didn't learn it from websites.  Perhaps one day when it is of burning concern to me, you and I can enter in to a discussion of its use, misuse, and abuse in informal conversations.


       
      Respectfully,
      Stephen Lord


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jozinky
      Yo Stephen; . ... ......... j; Well you really didn t make a statement; you asked a question, and an illogical one at that. ... ...... j; Yes... an illogical,
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Yo Stephen;
        .
        On 10/6/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen Lord wrote:
        > James, were I an opponent of the inspiration of Scriptures and seeking
        > to enter in to a formal debate with another, which would include a set
        > of agreed upon rules, a panel of moderators and formally stated
        > Affirmations and Negatives, I might have an interest in wording a
        > statement in accord with the mutually agreed upon rules of that formal
        > debate procedure.
        .........
        j; Well you really didn't make a statement; you asked a question, and an
        illogical one at that.
        ...........
        > However, as I was not entering in to a formal debate, but asking a
        > personal query in an informal setting,
        ......
        j; Yes... an illogical, loaded question. :-)
        ........
        > I'm under no moral compunction to reword a question to suit the whims
        > of one individual before a helpful answer will be provided.
        .........
        j; One cannot offer a "helpful answer" to an illogical question.
        .........
        > If you had a constructive solution to the issue of solecisms in the
        > text, it would have been useful to provide it instead of wanting to
        > engage in a sideshow issue of how to word a question in a formal
        > debate in a way to suit your liking.
        .........
        j; Well you didn't ask about solecisms in the text; you asked about
        solecisms in the Original Manuscripts.
        .......
        > Trying to sweep every instance of solecism in the text under the rug
        > with the magic broom of "scribal error" is intellectually dishonest
        > and therefore of no help to me.
        ........
        j; You don't believe in scribal error? You think it's a "magic broom"?
        So sorry. Perhaps you have a better solution for solecism in the
        ~text~... not the Original Manuscripts. If so y knot show it to us
        instead of throwing rocks.
        .........
        >
        > And, sir, I do know a thing or two about Formal and Informal Logic,
        > including its limitations.
        ........
        j; Well you kood-a fooled me with your loaded question & straw man
        arguments.
        .........
        > And I didn't learn it from websites.
        ......
        j; Methinks you didn't learn it period.. :-D
        ....
        > Perhaps one day when it is of burning concern to me, you and I can
        > enter in to a discussion of its use, misuse, and abuse in informal
        > conversations.
        ......
        j; Surprise... we already have by way of my pointing out your illogical
        thinking.

        hand;
        James
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.