neologist wrote:Thanks for checking in, Set. Unlike others, I highly value your input. I even seek it, remember?
You're too kind--and if you are being sarcastic, you are subtle, as you long ago convinced me that you are sincere.
Quote:Sure, I believe the bible is God's word.
That does not answer a question, the burden of which was, do you strictly interpret the bible as the literal truth, inerrant in every jot and tittle? Hence the reference to Ussher's exegesis.
Quote:And I can understand one who looks on the bloody and cacophonous history of religion and concludes there must be no God.
That would not be me, so i am at a loss to know why you include it in your response. Now, had you written that "one who looks on the bloody and cacophonous history of religion and concludes that the religionists do not follow the rational precepts of any reasonable god," you'd have come closer to describing my view. However, mere cacophony does not dismay me--i'm hard of hearing, so barking dogs and wailing children are no burden to me. I do not assert that there is no god, simply that i have no good reason to believe that there is.
Quote:But I never cease to be amazed at the internal veracity of the story of man's fall. You could say the whole thing never took place and I would accept it as a legitimate opinion.
Purely on a rhetorical basis, it would be an opinion which would trump yours, unless and until you provide proof. Those who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proving the claim. You have a lot of problems here. Once again, you have not directly made a statement about whether or not you consider the text of this particular scripture to be the literal truth, and completely inerrant. Addtionally, you have provided no definition of what constitutes "man's fall," to where he fell, and from whence he fell. Although i don't think that you and i misunderstand one another here, it is still, within the context of debate, rather too vague a term to use.
Quote:Frank, on the other hand, attempts to refute the writing from within by applying Frank's standards to Moses' account. Was Moses a liar? I don't think so. Did he provide a coherent explanation? You betcha.
Moses Alou, the baseball player? Come on, Neo, if you have a quibble with Frank's standards (which in fairness to me are not mine, and in fairness to Frank, are not intellectually objectionable to me), you should both take that up with him, and be more explicit. What was Moses coherently explaining, and did he deal in metaphor, or faithful reporting of the literal truth?
