The Bible is for everyone, faithful or not.
The Old Testament Hebrew Bible is also the story of the Jewish people and their developing relationship with the One true and living God, their realisation there is only One God, and also what God wanted us to know for our salvation. And very importantly the Hebrew Bible prepared the Old Testament peoples and us today for the coming of Jesus Christ in the New Testament
I think the language is clear for the point being made. St. Paul points to this, saying it was attributed as righteousness for Abraham. The words God “speaks” are prophetic & become our words after the cross, “Now i know.”
Your rebuttal
This Is a great example of why Catholics do not use one Biblical Passage as proof of and an attempt to win a debate.
Actually, your response is a great example of someone squirming to find something to respond. Being unable to do so, the next best thing is to try to diminish the power of my rebuttal. But you have failed.De_Maria:
Your rebuttal
This Is a great example of why Catholics do not use one Biblical Passage as proof of and an attempt to win a debate.
The context within which I used the verse is exactly that of the verse in the Scriptures. Atheists, the name explains it all, are against God. They are called fools in Scripture:
God made everyone. And His Word if for those who choose to follow Him. Not for those who deny Him.
Yeah. Whenever an Atheist wishes to convert, he can begin to study the Word of God. The Bible was written for God’s children.
That is incredibly rude and uncharitable. ‘squirming’ ?
Yes the Bible as pointed out in your quote, from where It is not clear as you do not reference it’s source, is on the most basic level, what God wants us to know for our salvation.
Firstly, Your first sentence here does not automatically equal the conclusion of your second sentence.
When there is zero evidence to support a claim it’s safe to say nothing has been shown. And this isn’t a matter where all positions are equally possible. No, what’s being asked runs counter to how things work. I’ve shown that language where a phrase can have two opposite meanings can cause major trouble. Because of that one must taken at its face value until a certain threshold of evidence is presented which allows for an alternate reading. And again since the evidence given is zilch, that threshold is far from having been met, which means that it has not been shown (so far) to be a reasonable possibility.
Trust comes from repeated demonstration of facts, not a series of unfalsifiable assumptions.
A presupposition presents several hurdles when it comes to identifying truth. First, it can cause one to lower the bar as to what can be considered confirming evidence. Take an apologist like Lee Strobel. He is so convinced (i.e. has a presupposition) that the Bible contains numerous fulfilled prophecies that he will claim Messianic prophecies occur in two texts that share barely similar verbiage, even texts where the subject that is supposed to represent the Messiah involves a sinner. Two, it can cause one to raise the bar as to what can be considered disconfirming evidence. Let’s take another apologist, William Lane Craig (who I know like Strobel is not Catholic Christian but is Christian). He was asked if he were taken on a time machine to the crucifixion of Jesus, then waited outside his tomb for several weeks, and nothing happened he would still believe in the resurrection. This is an extreme case, but it’s this kind of presupposition that can make one truth-averse. Third, presupposition can make one search for “solutions” to make everything fit instead of truth. That’s what we see here with people beating language to bloody pulp to make something say what it doesn’t say.
Now let’s say you were talking to someone of another faith and they presented the same reasoning for their church. You wouldn’t buy it. You require a certain trail of facts to find what they say to be trustworthy. For you the Catholic Church is special and is not subject to basic rules of validation like you require of other churches.
While I have significant doubts as to the existence of Adonai, I am keeping an open mind. My position on language is not a presupposition, but a tenet of understanding and truth. If only I were given evidence to sway me from that position.
Let’s take a look at what that “evidence” was. It was an article in another language where the summary threw out the possibility that the phrase in question has its subject and object reversed because it helps the Judeo-Christian cause. I asked for what evidence the author provided for such an idea. I got nothing. I asked for other articles that made similar claims and could back up their statements. I got nothing but name calling as way to dodge the fact that such articles don’t seem to exist. When I was told that this was a concept that had to be spoken in that way because it was a concept man couldn’t understand, I showed how nonsensical that idea was by showing that it was actually quite a simple concept that could be relayed in simple terms. The response was to change it from a matter of understanding to a need for poetry which supersedes that of clarity. This isn’t evidence. It’s unsupported claims that when shown not to be evidence I’m getting various versions of “Nuh-uh!”
Even if I don’t believe in God, it should present itself as internally consistent. The passage we’re talking about presents God as not all-knowing. That is major problem for believers who want the Bible to be internally consistent, therefore they come up with these theories from whole cloth beating language over the head with a shovel to reach that goal.
Nothing is perfectly made, certainly not man. Is onchocerca volvulus perfectly made?
If your theory lives or dies based on a single pay-to-read article then it’s not much of a theory. Genesis has been around for thousands of years and has been the subject of constant discussion. If a single person alone claims to have an explanation as to why the object and subject of the passage were switched without changing a word, then maybe there isn’t enough proof to present it in a discussion.
A newspaper can be open access so long as you buy it. Top secret documents are not open access since the ability to access it is limited to select persons.
The impasse is I’m doing legwork and you’re not. I can’t do your homework for you, too.
You every play pick-up basketball where the same person ries “FOUL!” on every touch real or imagined. That’s kind of what’s happening here. I’m legitimately asking for something solid to shore up the theory of the magical switching subject/object and I’m getting nothing back.
If only taking five minutes on an internet search engine to back claims that were made was one of those things.
That’s not what it means in academia. Look it up.
I bow to your expertise on ancient linguistics.
You can believe what you want. I have obligations in real life. I don’t have enough time to learn ancient Hebrew. In any event, you’d reject it.
If only ancient Hebrew resources are ubiquitous.
Because those resources are gated. Am I supposed to spend money on a gated paper to appease you? Good luck with that.
Very interesting. Let’s apply that to you.
So, there is something that has been presented as a fact, but where’s that demonstration?
Again - a declaration with no demonstration.
So, finally something that is testable. Only it happens to fail the test miserably.
And you accusing me of cherry picking is, of course, very charitable.
Again, incredibly rude and uncharitable. Against CAF TOS. Goodday to you.
LOL! Welcome to our normal response to your own personal Scriptural stylings!
I would nuance that just a bit. It’s not ‘two opposite meanings’… it’s “two opposite interpretations.” That’s a rather critical difference.
Funny how only “Christian apologists” truck in “presuppositions”, while atheists like you are the arbiters of pure logic, eh?
Again, that’s a rather fascinating perspective. Your “open mind” seems only able to offer denials. That’s the definition of “open”?
No. You did get evidence. You simply rejected it, however. That spin – of “rejection” as “I got nothing” – might help you with your confirmation bias of your personally held belief in your own “rationality” and “open mindedness”… but it doesn’t hold up quite so well as the distance from your keyboard increases.
