The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dispute the terms eloquently and succinctly, and i also dispute that the argument is
specious, for example let us take the instance of Babylon, what does the scriptures
state in this regard,

[b]Distinguishing features. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been
fulfilled down to the smallest of details. They usually involve mat ...[text shortened]... science and archaeology! The text is
sound and trustworthy and you Noobsters should read it.[/b]

That's all very sexy but of course you take a literalist view of the Bible. It should be worth noting that scholars since the late 19th Century have held that the Book of Isaiah was written by at least three people, maybe more.

What you see as prophecy, i see as gullibility.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's all very sexy but of course you take a literalist view of the Bible.

No, robbie has changed his mind very recently.
Now he thinks that the story of Adam and Eve isn't more than a symbolic story. He hasn't denied the symbolic interpretation of any biblical story. I've asked him, and he never denied it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's all very sexy but of course you take a literalist view of the Bible. It should be worth noting that scholars since the late 19th Century have held that the Book of Isaiah was written by at least three people, maybe more.

What you see as prophecy, i see as gullibility.

Oh dear Noobster i thought you would be petitioning the Gods of logic and reason in an attempt to save the first test in Brisbane 😛

It seems to me that the triumphal procession must continue, unabated, for your position is summed up by the words of John Romer in his book Testament—The Bible and History: “A fundamental objection to this whole method of analysis is that to this day not one scrap of ancient text has been found to prove the existence of the theoretical strands of different texts so beloved of modern scholarship.”

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, robbie has changed his mind very recently.
Now he thinks that the story of Adam and Eve isn't more than a symbolic story. He hasn't denied the symbolic interpretation of any biblical story. I've asked him, and he never denied it.

sigh i suppose its the best you can do Fabian, never the less may i remind you that the terms of agreement stipulate that you should post responsibly and refrain from changing, manipulating of misrepresenting the text of another, your position is summed up as follows,

“Investigators . . . start from the assumption that the facts of history which lie behind the narratives are purely natural facts, similar in nature to other facts known to us. . . . Does a writer state as fact an event which lies outside the range of known laws of Nature? Then . . . the alleged event did not happen.” McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia,

your whole stance is based on an assumption, a castle made of sand that is destined to fall into the sea, eventually.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Huh? you don't think that finding hundreds of fragments of thousand year old scrolls preserved intact has anything to do with archaeology or the textual integrity of scripture may be corroborated by such, my goodness if God himself were to appear and with his finger inscribe the ten commandments on a piece of stone i think you would call into questi ...[text shortened]... not a plaster cast! Your cynicism knows no bounds and it has devoured your ability to reason!

As I said in the post you replied to, textual integrity (as you are using it) has nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy of the content of text. You clearly cant seem to see this obvious fact so I think it is you that has trouble reasoning in this instance.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, The Lord of the Rings has a far greater claim to textual integrity than the Bible, yet even if Gandalf himself appeared before you, you would call it into question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh i suppose its the best you can do Fabian, never the less may i remind you that the terms of agreement stipulate that you should post responsibly and refrain from changing, manipulating of misrepresenting the text of another, your position is summed up as follows,

“Investigators . . . start from the assumption that the facts of history which ...[text shortened]... based on an assumption, a castle made of sand that is destined to fall into the sea, eventually.

But also that you are not evasive. I put you a question, and you asnwer in a way that is a non-answer.

We start from the beginning again, robbie. Let's be serious in the debate from now on.

Question:
You say that the snake talking is symbolic. How about the rest of the Adam and Eve story? What says one part is symbolic and another part is not? Who decides?

These are crucial matters of how to understand how you thinks about the truthness of the bible. If you don't answer you leave it to me to decide how to interprete your views.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear Noobster i thought you would be petitioning the Gods of logic and reason in an attempt to save the first test in Brisbane 😛

It seems to me that the triumphal procession must continue, unabated, for your position is summed up by the words of John Romer in his book Testament—The Bible and History: “A fundamental objection to this whole meth ...[text shortened]... e the existence of the theoretical strands of different texts so beloved of modern scholarship.”

The 1st test is in safe hands, we have to give the Aussies a little hope.

As for your quote, what relevance does that have to this? The quote could be about any topic, i know how you like tp indulge in a little quote mining every so often.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said in the post you replied to, textual integrity (as you are using it) has nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy of the content of text. You clearly cant seem to see this obvious fact so I think it is you that has trouble reasoning in this instance.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, The Lord of the Rings has a far greater claim to textual inte ...[text shortened]... han the Bible, yet even if Gandalf himself appeared before you, you would call it into question.

well then live your life by the principles contained in the lord of the rings, for God knows your posts contain as much fantasy.

It appears to me you don't know anything about scripture, your simply a mouth piece for your own prejudices, nothing surprising there. Isaiah has remained unchanged for thousand years, confirmed by archaeology (the dead sea scrolls), its text dated through scientific means, its contents subjected to analysis, the conclusion, the text is essentially the same as when it was penned. Your evidence to the contrary is non existent, indeed, you reply with your usual nothingness with a straw man argument, it has nothing to do with accuracy of content, well ok, you will now state what content has been altered and on what basis that we are to accept that it has been altered and to state how it changes the meaning. If you cannot nor will not, you will stop wasting our precious seconds with these mundane arguments. You do not read scripture you have no interest in it and to be honest, you don't know anything about it. The worst kind of atheist or theist is that which projects his ignorance onto others in the name of reason, if you don't know anything about a subject then just shut up about it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But also that you are not evasive. I put you a question, and you asnwer in a way that is a non-answer.

We start from the beginning again, robbie. Let's be serious in the debate from now on.

Question:
You say that the snake talking is symbolic. How about the rest of the Adam and Eve story? What says one part is symbolic and another part is not? Who ...[text shortened]... s of the bible. If you don't answer you leave it to me to decide how to interprete your views.

i did not state that the snake was symbolic, i stated that snakes don't talk.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The 1st test is in safe hands, we have to give the Aussies a little hope.

As for your quote, what relevance does that have to this? The quote could be about any topic, i know how you like tp indulge in a little quote mining every so often.

hope, Lol, you becoming religious now dear Noobster?

Actually the quotations shows that there is not one fragment of ancient manuscript which supports a multi author point of view, and there are thousands of extant biblical manuscripts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well then live your life by the principles contained in the lord of the rings, for God knows your posts contain as much fantasy. It appears to me you don't know anything about scripture, your simply a mouth piece for your own prejudices, nothing surprising there. Isaiah has remained unchanged for thousand years, confirmed by archaeology (the dead s ...[text shortened]... in the name of reason, if you don't know anything about a subject then just shut up about it.

How is it that me, twhitehead, Fabian, Penguin and 'The Cat' can all seem to follow this thread we're participating in, yet you are regularly unable to do so?

There's a constant theme to all this confusion, and that's you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How is it that me, twhitehead, Fabian, Penguin and 'The Cat' can all seem to follow this thread we're participating in, yet you are regularly unable to do so?

There's a constant theme to all this confusion, and that's you.

he has stated that there is no evidence that the content has not been altered, i have provided ample evidence to demonstrate that it has not, he made the statement, he will now demonstrate, evidence to the contrary, if he cannot then he should shut up. He has stated that textual integrity has nothing to do with accuracy of content (a rather feeble attempt to shift the goal posts), then he will now demonstrate what actual content is inaccurate, if he cannot then he will shut up. The matter is quite clear in my mind, as for you noobsters, who can say?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hope, Lol, you becoming religious now dear Noobster?

Actually the quotations shows that there is not one fragment of ancient manuscript which supports a multi author point of view, and there are thousands of extant biblical manuscripts.

As i understand it Biblical scholars would disagree with you on that point, but hey, why let the 'experts' get in the way of what you want to believe?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
As i understand it Biblical scholars would disagree with you on that point, but hey, why let the 'experts' get in the way of what you want to believe?!

then where is there physical evidence, where are the manuscripts, even you as the foremost materialist of the universe must appreciate the necessity of some material evidence dear Noobster.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then where is there physical evidence, where are the manuscripts, even you as the foremost materialist of the universe must appreciate the necessity of some material evidence dear Noobster.

If i'm adding text to a manuscript at a later date to provide proof that a phrophesy has been fullfilled, i'm hardly going to leave the original copy, which would show that i've made it up, lying around?

If you commit fraud, your hardly going to leave the documents which incriminate you scattered around your house/office waiting to be found. If you had a brain you would dispose of them rather rapidly.