Poll: To spectators: Who is winning?
This poll is closed.
Bible Belt Brawler 71.43% 5 71.43%
Jeremy E Walker 28.57% 2 28.57%
Total 7 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 11:35 PM
Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
Jeremy E Walker wished to have a one-on-one with me after I pointed out there are parts of the Bible that do not make sense, even if taken in context, and make even less sense when viewed in a modern science-literate society.

I will be pointing out the technical errors I percieve, and Jeremy E Walker will discuss these points with me.

We will begin in Genesis.

Also, due to the fact I will be using a Nintendo Wii to type the majority of my messages, I will simply state my source instead posting a link and my opponent can check me at his leisure.

I look forward to this discussion and will remain as polite and sincere as possible. I hope my opponent will do the same.

I am ready to begin.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Bible Belt Brawler's post
17-05-2014, 05:54 AM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(16-05-2014 11:35 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Jeremy E Walker wished to have a one-on-one with me after I pointed out there are parts of the Bible that do not make sense, even if taken in context, and make even less sense when viewed in a modern science-literate society.

I will be pointing out the technical errors I percieve, and Jeremy E Walker will discuss these points with me.

We will begin in Genesis.

Also, due to the fact I will be using a Nintendo Wii to type the majority of my messages, I will simply state my source instead posting a link and my opponent can check me at his leisure.

I look forward to this discussion and will remain as polite and sincere as possible. I hope my opponent will do the same.

I am ready to begin.

A distinction needs to be made between something not making sense to you and something that is a "technical error", a phrase you need to define which you have yet to do.

The distinction needs to be made due to the fact that something can not make sense to you in the bible and not be a "techincal error". Here I am assuming techincal error refers to something in the bible that you think contradicts the findings of science.

Just because a passage in the bible does not make sense to you or you cannot understand it does not equate to it being a passage that contradicts the findings of science. It very well may be that your lack of comprehension of a passage is due to something else i.e. a deficiency in your ability to read, or your lack of knowledge regarding the particular type of genre of literature you are reading, or you lack of training in hermeneutics, etc. etc.

There are numerous reasons why a passage may not make sense to you besides the passage contradicting the findings of science. As long as it is epistemically possible that any of the above supplied reasons obtains, then it does not follow that just because a passage is non-sensical to you that therefore the passage contradicts the findings of science.

So you will first need to define "technical error", and then deal with what I have argued.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
17-05-2014, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 08:14 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
The content of this post has been removed by a moderator.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
17-05-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
Do not post in this thread if you are not the one who has been challenged to a debate.
Find all posts by this user
17-05-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(17-05-2014 05:54 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:35 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Jeremy E Walker wished to have a one-on-one with me after I pointed out there are parts of the Bible that do not make sense, even if taken in context, and make even less sense when viewed in a modern science-literate society.

I will be pointing out the technical errors I percieve, and Jeremy E Walker will discuss these points with me.

We will begin in Genesis.

Also, due to the fact I will be using a Nintendo Wii to type the majority of my messages, I will simply state my source instead posting a link and my opponent can check me at his leisure.

I look forward to this discussion and will remain as polite and sincere as possible. I hope my opponent will do the same.

I am ready to begin.

A distinction needs to be made between something not making sense to you and something that is a "technical error", a phrase you need to define which you have yet to do.

The distinction needs to be made due to the fact that something can not make sense to you in the bible and not be a "techincal error". Here I am assuming techincal error refers to something in the bible that you think contradicts the findings of science.

Just because a passage in the bible does not make sense to you or you cannot understand it does not equate to it being a passage that contradicts the findings of science. It very well may be that your lack of comprehension of a passage is due to something else i.e. a deficiency in your ability to read, or your lack of knowledge regarding the particular type of genre of literature you are reading, or you lack of training in hermeneutics, etc. etc.

There are numerous reasons why a passage may not make sense to you besides the passage contradicting the findings of science. As long as it is epistemically possible that any of the above supplied reasons obtains, then it does not follow that just because a passage is non-sensical to you that therefore the passage contradicts the findings of science.

So you will first need to define "technical error", and then deal with what I have argued.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
17-05-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
Sorry about that.

I said that for the purposes of this debate, a technical error will be defined as any statement that contradicts another part of the Bible or that contradicts known mathematical or scientific laws.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Bible Belt Brawler's post
17-05-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(17-05-2014 07:03 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Sorry about that.

I said that for the purposes of this debate, a technical error will be defined as any statement that contradicts another part of the Bible or that contradicts known mathematical or scientific laws.

To begin, we have the creation account:

We have the oceans in existence without a sun or any light to warm them [for them to remain oceans], or a solar system to place them in.

[Genesis 1:2]

Then light is created, and separated from darkness. We now know that darkness is the absence of photons rather than something else. Also, where does this light come from?

[Gen. 1:3-5]

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
18-05-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  I said that for the purposes of this debate, a technical error will be defined as any statement that contradicts another part of the Bible or that contradicts known mathematical or scientific laws.

Ok.


(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  We have the oceans in existence without a sun or any light to warm them [for them to remain oceans], or a solar system to place them in.

Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?

(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Then light is created, and separated from darkness. We now know that darkness is the absence of photons rather than something else. Also, where does this light come from?

[Gen. 1:3-5]

Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?
Find all posts by this user
18-05-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(18-05-2014 11:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  I said that for the purposes of this debate, a technical error will be defined as any statement that contradicts another part of the Bible or that contradicts known mathematical or scientific laws.

Ok.


(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  We have the oceans in existence without a sun or any light to warm them [for them to remain oceans], or a solar system to place them in.

Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?

(17-05-2014 07:14 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  Then light is created, and separated from darkness. We now know that darkness is the absence of photons rather than something else. Also, where does this light come from?

[Gen. 1:3-5]

Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?

Scientific Law on both counts.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
19-05-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Bible on Trial: A debate with Jeremy E Walker on the technical accuracy of the Bible
(18-05-2014 12:28 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 11:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Ok.



Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?


Well this is not a contradiction of a mathematical law.

So you must either think it is a statement that contradicts another part of the bible or either a statement that contradicts scientific law(s).

Which do you maintain it contradicts? Another part of the Bible, a scientific law, or both?

Scientific Law on both counts.

Excellent.

Now, please state which law(s) is(are) contradicted by the aforementioned verses. Please provide the verses in their entirety and please provide reason(s) why these verses contradict the scientific law(s) you reference.

When you reference the verses, provide the Hebrew rendering along with a literal translation into English.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: