Search results

Feel free.

No, I'm asking you why the NT's buying into the truth of the Adam and Eve story tells us anything more than that the truth of the story was well accepted 2,000 years ago. Nobody doubts that the NT authors, largely Jews, bought into it. We know a little more today than they did. Or than Milton...

Well, then I guess we're done here. Thanks for playing.

So does Milton's "Paradise Lost." What's your point?

Like I said, I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Let me repeat it for you:

When Scripture is silent on something, we often make an assumptions about what likely happened based on our own predilections masquerading as logic. Here’s an example: Did Methuselah die in the Great Flood? Gen. 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood. That means his...

And there is neither male nor female is a repudiation of WHAT?

I am a fan of F.F. Bruce. And also of NT. Wright, whose take on the subject of womens' roles in the church overlaps with Utley's (but his video a lot shorter)...

I think that was @St. SteVen's point. I'll add to it: it's not always obvious when a story is a parable.

I did.

My wife is an Episcopal priest. Godly woman. Harvard Divinity School grad. Smart as anyone I know. I've heard her preach, and she is as good or better than any man I've ever heard form the pulpit. It makes no logical sense that God would care one whit about the gonads of His ministers. But...

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

I'm looking for the verse that says "those who defend gays" will burn in Hell fire. Can you point me to it?

I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, many facial inconsistencies in Scripture can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. But...

I agree. But that doesn't exclude human error from the Bible. Your particular human error is equating "inspired" with "inerrant."

I am totally in agreement with infant baptism as a sacred tradition handed down from the early Church. But we haven't a clue as to whether Paul mentioned it or instituted it, it Thessalonika. Ditto for any other tradition you care to name. We cannot know what Paul said -- or whether a single...

And maybe they did correct him. Or maybe they were too stunned by the point being made to correct him. Or maybe the mistake was Mark's. Either way, Mark's quotation of Jesus is at odds with Samuel. Someone made a mistake here, whether originally or in the retelling. I'm sorry if such...

Why hypothesize on possible, but unlikely, explanations for Scriptural discrepancies (of which there are many)? Why not just take both texts at face value? Are you so desperate to protect your BIG hypothesis of Scriptural inerrancy that you will indulge the improbable, even the fantastical...

OK, smarty pants, enlighten us all. What did Paul verbally tell the Thessalonians? I agree. (For the fourth time!) What tradition of the church do you think I consider a rumor?

No, I don't care to edit my claims. And I don't care to bother explaining a third time how you have misunderstood my claims.