- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/14/26 at 5:20 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Not sure. I didn't go back and check. It was the post where I spoke to the examples of the unmovable foundations of the earth being given as examples of geocentrism.
Explained. Was that in the same post where you explained that there could have been a dinosaur “kind” on the ark?
quote:If you can't contribute anything but ridicule, I'd prefer if you abandoned it, as well.
I need to abandon this foolish discussion.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 5:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:NOT WITHOUT THOROUGH EXPLANATION!
Are you denying that God has intervened in this world in a supernatural and atypical way in the past?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 5:50 pm to AUveritas
quote:No need. My argument isn't that the oldest copies available have it correct or incorrect. My argument is that the internal witness of the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles and the longer narrative in 1 Samuel already provide the baseline.
Then feel free to link a copy of the oldest manuscripts and show that the translations are wrong
quote:No you didn't. You cited an apparent contradiction and then followed up by making the claim that most biblical scholars agree with you. You didn't show anything.
It's absolutely not. I just showed that it's not.
Here's my argument, which is more than any argument you've made to the contrary so far:
1. The main and most lengthy narrative of the death of Goliath is found in 1 Samuel 17, where it goes out of its way to say that David was the one who killed him, and provided a ton of detail.
2. 1 Samuel 21 has moved on from that specific narrative, but supports it by stating that David kept the sword of Goliath after killing him.
3. In 2 Samuel 21, later in David's life, is a narrative of how David's mighty men (best warriors) were slaying giants along with David, and David--due to age--became tired, and his men told him not to fight any longer lest he fall in battle. It then goes on to talk about different giants that were killed, and in verse 19, we have the verse in question about Elhanan killing "Goliath". This is where the discrepancy came in.
4. At the end of 2 Samuel 21, the passage of killing giants concludes with this: "These four were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants." The four in question were Ishbi-benob, killed by Abishai; Saph, who was killed by Sibbecai; Goliath, who was killed by Elhanan; and the unnamed 6-fingered giant, who was killed by Jonathan. This confirms that several other giants were killed by those other than David, who had been fighting giants (including Goliath) earlier.
5. 1 Chronicles 20 is the parallel passage to 2 Samuel 21, which provides much of the same detail. In this passage, Elhanan is said to have killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.
The evidence is weighed in favor of David being the one to have killed Goliath, while Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, Lahmi. The verse in 2 Samuel dropped the words, "the brother of", causing the apparent contradiction, but if it's merely a copyist error, as I believe it may be, then the rest of the Old Testament confirms and preserves the original reading.
Thinking it was actually Elhanan that killed the original Goliath of 1 Samuel 17 is ridiculous, and only goes to show that you (or anyone who believes it) is looking for a contradiction rather than trying to make sense of the text.
quote:It's not my mere opinion. It's based on the nature of Scripture. If it's God's word, then it is incapable of error, and therefore all other "facts" must be interpreted in light of God's revelation, not the other way around.
Even if that were true (which it absolutely isn't), it doesn't make their conclusions false. When truth conflicts with your opinions, it doesn't automatically make the facts wrong.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 5:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Correct, which is why we are to understand God's word better by studying it in its entirety and interpreting it with the hermeneutic that it interprets itself, and we use the more clear passages to help us understand the less clear. We don't try to understand it by forcing our man-made theories into the text.
Stipulated.
There are only errors in translation and/or interpretation.
quote:God's thoughts are higher than ours, and His understanding greater than ours. He condescends to us by speaking to us in ways we can understand.
For example, time preeminence to the mortal vs inconsequentiality to the immortal. God exists outside of time. It is a theme hit over and over and over in scripture. Does the "notetaker" fully perceive ramifications as conveyed? Just as is God's covenant to his consistent laws of the universe tying time to mortality.
If God wanted to convey long ages of time in creation, He could have easily done so. The language existed to do so, and it wouldn't have been mind-blowing to people who didn't know any better. He communicated the way He did because that is how He created. Jesus affirmed this when He said "from the beginning" in reference to the creation of Adam and Eve and their marriage.
quote:I'm not denying what God has revealed through natural revelation (nature), but I'm denying man's fallible interpretations of that natural revelation precisely because it contradicts the more clear special revelation found in the Bible. Fossils don't have divine time stamps and labels on them. A fossil is merely a fossil, but it's interpreted to be millions of years old.
In assessing Genesis though, you choose to deny the additional messages that God has directly revealed to you via the Natural Record.
I would argue that we should be interpreting the fossil record in light of God's clear word, such as according to the global flood narrative that caused massive amounts of death and destruction through geological chaos.
quote:I'm interpreting the less clear (natural revelation) in light of the more clear (special revelation). You are doing the opposite, it seems.
Yet, here you are, questioning that basis which God has DIRECTLY REVEALED TO YOU via the geologic or fossil record, via the constants of math, physics, chemistry, and biology. God has revealed it, and you have denied the revelation.
quote:What are you referring to here?
The hand of God guides us, but we are still capable of incomplete or misleading transcription. Early writers knew as much when they excluded some of God's messengers, some of His selected class "notetakers" as it were, from inclusion in the Bible.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 6:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You cited an apparent contradiction and then followed up by making the claim that most biblical scholars agree with you.
Quote:
The basic idea is that the oldest tradition is assumed to have preserved the story of an otherwise unknown Elhanan who killed Goliath, while later traditions deliberately attributed this heroic deed to David to shore up the reputation of Israel’s greatest king
[link=(Who Really Killed Goliath? https://share.google/qZew6q9WnfoTuQW9X)]Who Really Killed Goliath?[/link]
quote:
it's merely a copyist error, as I believe
Based on what? This is the mental gymnastics I am referring to. Which scribe would have made the mistake? How does this now now show that the Bible is not inerrant if you are correct?
quote:
If it's God's word, then it is incapable of error, and therefore all other "facts" must be interpreted in light of God's revelation, not the other way around.
So, obvious errors can't be errors because you think there can't be errors?
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 6:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:So you deny God's explanation of His supernatural involvement because it isn't thoroughly documented to your satisfaction?
NOT WITHOUT THOROUGH EXPLANATION!
Posted on 3/14/26 at 6:40 pm to AUveritas
quote:I think you need to read the link you gave again. The conclusion seems to be that there wasn't a contradiction, but a scribal error in both passages that identifies Elhanan as a Bethlemite who killed Goliath's brother, who is unnamed. They don't seem to make a final conclusion, other than to suggest that that's a natural understanding of what happened in the text.
The basic idea is that the oldest tradition is assumed to have preserved the story of an otherwise unknown Elhanan who killed Goliath, while later traditions deliberately attributed this heroic deed to David to shore up the reputation of Israel’s greatest king
[link=(Who Really Killed Goliath? https://share.google/qZew6q9WnfoTuQW9X)]Who Really Killed Goliath?[/link]
Here is what they say at the end:
As can be seen, the textual issues involved are complex. Given the arguments outlined above, however, one plausible historical reconstruction is that Elhanan the Bethlehemite actually killed the brother of Goliath, whose name we aren’t given. That this giant was unnamed is not unusual, since the very next mini episode in 2 Samuel 21:20–21 mentions another giant (this time slain by Jonathan the son of Shimei), who is likewise left unnamed in the narrative.
At the end of the day, they are not concluding a contradiction exists, or that David was not the one who killed Goliath, so I'm not sure why you posted that article that sems to be supportive of my general position and hostile to yours.
quote:Even the link you provided states that copyist errors occurred. Having the internal witness of multiple confirmations of David slaying Goliath and Elhanan killing Goliath's brother makes it clear what happened.
Based on what? This is the mental gymnastics I am referring to. Which scribe would have made the mistake? How does this now show that the Bible is not inerrant if you are correct?
The inerrancy of the Bible speaks to the original autographs, not all copies that could ever be made. The preservation of the Bible speaks to the original text being discernable for teaching and application.
In this case, the original autographs describe David killing Goliath and Elhanon killing Goliath's brother.
quote:I'd say "correct", except for the word "obvious". I'm arguing that the example you are cited is not an "obvious error" in God's revelation, because if it is God's revelation, it will not have been transmitted with errors.
So, obvious errors can't be errors because you think there can't be errors?
Are you a Christian?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 6:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you can't contribute anything but ridicule, I'd prefer if you abandoned it, as well.
Foo, like I said earlier, I like you. You seem sincere. But there is no having a conversation with you about this because of your beliefs. When the conversation goes to dinosaurs on the ark, I just can’t.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 6:53 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Thank you. I understand fully that you cannot accept what the Bible teaches, because you are spiritually dead. These things will sound absolutely silly to someone who doesn't believe it's God's word, and I'm not surprised or shocked that you "just can't", and think it's ridiculous. I understand that what I believe is laughed at and completely rejected as absurd.
Foo, like I said earlier, I like you. You seem sincere. But there is no having a conversation with you about this because of your beliefs. When the conversation goes to dinosaurs on the ark, I just can’t.
I pray that God changes your heart and gives you true understanding and trust in Jesus Christ as your savior for the forgiveness of your sins and everlasting life.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Even the link you provided states that copyist errors occurred.
So, contradictions exist and the Bible isn't inerrant?
quote:
The inerrancy of the Bible speaks to the original autographs, not all copies that could ever be made
But we don't have the original autographs so such a claim is nonsensical. We have copies of copies. You have no grounds to claim that it's just the copies that are wrong.
quote:
because if it is God's revelation, it will not have been transmitted with errors.
But what if it's just people trying to make sense of God's revelation with their very limited mind?
quote:
Are you a Christian?
Yes. But my faith isn't dependent on the Bible. I hold to the infallibility of the Bible rather than literal inerrancy. I believe the spiritual message and its overarching truth are divine and true, even if the human recording of history or science reflects the era in which it was written and is susceptible to minor errors.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:03 pm to FooManChoo
quote:No.
So you deny God's explanation of His supernatural involvement because it isn't thoroughly documented to your satisfaction?
Because first off, every instance He breaks his covenant is accompanied by an explanation. Second, despite your false contention to the contrary, there is no explanation for the creation then elimination of dinosaurs in a matter of a few hours, yet in away which would appear as if it occurred over a period of two hundred million years. Such action would constitute a purposeless and unnecessary breach of His Biblical covenant. Yet uniquely it is accompanied by no explanation.
The same would be said of breaches requisite in the timeframe of creation in general ... 14+ Billion Years, which you compress through Biblical misinterpretation to a few thousand. Whereas, folks two hundred years ago could have pled legitimate scientific and Biblical ignorance regarding geocentricism, there is no such excuse for today's Young Earthers. They electively choose to ignore facts, and to deliberately misinterpret God's word in a way that inhibits the spreading of it. That is not the passive ignorance of the past. It is willful and damaging denialism.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:43 pm to FooManChoo
quote:STOP!
I understand fully that you cannot accept what the Bible teaches
Once again, we know from the fossil record "dinosaur kinds" did not remotely coexist with man. That is not theory. It is not interpretation. It is a simple fact of natural LAW. God's LAW. As such, it is as factually substantive as heliocentricism, and as the sky is blue. Radiocarbon dating falls within the same premise, as do the LAWS of thermodynamics and gravity.
We know via the LAWS of physics, given I'd argue by divine providence, that the universe is >14 Billion years old. That is not theory. It is not interpretation. It is a simple fact of natural LAW. God's LAW.
Jeremiah 33:25 explicitly addresses the order of natural laws. "I have established my covenant with day and night and the FIXED LAWS of heaven and earth."
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Mentions"???? ????? Seriously """Mentions"""????
Yes
quote:
NO!
Yes, it does.
quote:
Daniel chapter 4 SAYS Nebuchadnezzar had a dream. It was a dream!
Says, mentions, same thing. You and I are in alignment on this. Why argue?
quote:
In his dream, he saw a tree which was so tall that it touched the Heavens.
I agree that’s what the story mentions/says.
quote:
Have you ever dreamt something impossible?
Sure, but even dreams are grounded in a person’s perception of reality.
I’m not really sure what you are even arguing about. What point are you trying to make?
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:29 am to AUveritas
quote:No, the opposite.
So, contradictions exist and the Bible isn't inerrant?
I’m not sure you comprehended what said, so I’ll chalk that up to a poor explanation on my part.
quote:The Bible, itself, makes the claims to infallibility and inerrancy. It’s why Christians have believed that position from the beginning. It wasn’t until the 1800’s with the German higher criticism that these doctrines came under severe attack. In response, those who supported the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith, such as biblical inerrancy, became known as “fundamentalists”. This is a relatively recent attack, and if you undermine the trustworthiness of the Bible, you attack the foundations of the entire religion.
But we don't have the original autographs so such a claim is nonsensical. We have copies of copies. You have no grounds to claim that it's just the copies that are wrong.
quote:Then isn’t the word of God at all, but merely the words of man. Why should we trust the words of one man over another? Why the Bible over the Q’uran or the Book of Mormon?
But what if it's just people trying to make sense of God's revelation with their very limited mind?
The Bible is self-attesting to be the word of God.
quote:It ought to be. We can know that God exists from creation (general revelation), but the gospel comes only through the Bible (special revelation).
Yes. But my faith isn't dependent on the Bible.
quote:I don’t think you have truly considered the implications of what you are claiming. I suggest you dig a little deeper so you can understand the destruction of the Christian religion that would occur if the Bible were not completely trustworthy.
I hold to the infallibility of the Bible rather than literal inerrancy. I believe the spiritual message and its overarching truth are divine and true, even if the human recording of history or science reflects the era in which it was written and is susceptible to minor errors.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I think you need to reconsider your wording here. God doesn’t break covenant with us. We break covenant with Him.
No.
Because first off, every instance He breaks his covenant is accompanied by an explanation.
What covenant did God allegedly break?
quote:I disagree. First, I still don’t understand what covenant He had supposedly broken in my understanding of the Bible. He made th covenant of works with Adam, and Adam broke it. He made a covenant of grace with Himself (the Trinity), and has kept that.
Second, despite your false contention to the contrary, there is no explanation for the creation then elimination of dinosaurs in a matter of a few hours, yet in away which would appear as if it occurred over a period of two hundred million years. Such action would constitute a purposeless and unnecessary breach of His Biblical covenant. Yet uniquely it is accompanied by no explanation.
More to your point, I disagree with your statement that the few hours (days and weeks, more like) of destruction looks like millions of years. That is a problem with man’s interpretation of the evidence, not a problem with what God did.
quote:I don’t disagree with the facts. I disagree with the interpretation of the facts, as I’ve stated many times now.
The same would be said of breaches requisite in the timeframe of creation in general ... 14+ Billion Years, which you compress through Biblical misinterpretation to a few thousand. Whereas, folks two hundred years ago could have pled legitimate scientific and Biblical ignorance regarding geocentricism, there is no such excuse for today's Young Earthers. They electively choose to ignore facts, and to deliberately misinterpret God's word in a way that inhibits the spreading of it. That is not the passive ignorance of the past. It is willful and damaging denialism.
Once again: you are making man’s fallible interpretations of nature a greater authority than God’s direct and explicit revelational statements. You can’t possibly believe what God said because you believe such statements contradict what we “know” to be true. You are stating with the wrong authority.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:40 am to FooManChoo
Christianity predates the Bible. How can Christianity be dependent on it? What were the implications for the 1st generation of Christians who had no Bible? Never mind the fact that there wasn't a canon for the first 400 years of Christianity.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I will not.
STOP!
quote:Radiocarbon dating has its own sets of assumptions that can skew the results. I’m surprised you haven’t considered that, given how passionately you hold to the god of science over and against God’s revealed word. And yes, it is interpretation. We make inferences from the evidence found in nature, while God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible. You hold the inferences of fallible humans above the direct statements of an infallible God.
Once again, we know from the fossil record "dinosaur kinds" did not remotely coexist with man. That is not theory. It is not interpretation. It is a simple fact of natural LAW. God's LAW. As such, it is as factually substantive as heliocentricism, and as the sky is blue. Radiocarbon dating falls within the same premise, as do the LAWS of thermodynamics and gravity.
quote:No, you are conflating a law like gravity with a theory of what happened in the past based on inferences that are medicated in many assumptions that directly contradict or ignore what God has explicitly stated.
We know via the LAWS of physics, given I'd argue by divine providence, that the universe is >14 Billion years old. That is not theory. It is not interpretation. It is a simple fact of natural LAW. God's LAW.
quote:You are putting a lot into this one verse that says that God is consistent and upholds the universe in a consistent way. I don’t deny that there are laws of nature (like gravity) that God created and uses to maintain all things. That does not mean that He is bound by those laws, which is where miracles occur. He is t collaring any covenant by operating outside of the laws He uses to govern us.
Jeremiah 33:25 explicitly addresses the order of natural laws. "I have established my covenant with day and night and the FIXED LAWS of heaven and earth."
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:55 am to AUveritas
quote:The Bible includes the Old Testament, which was around long before the incarnation of Jesus.
Christianity predates the Bible.
Jesus came and revealed more of the truth that was shrouded in the OT. His disciples did the same by the Spirit of Christ. What God wanted to preserve for the Church was written down for us.
It sure is odd to see a supposed Christian work so hard to attack the Bible.
quote:See above.
How can Christianity be dependent on it? What were the implications for the 1st generation of Christians who had no Bible? Never mind the fact that there wasn't a canon for the first 400 years of Christianity.
Also, the Bible was complete by the end of the fist century.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 3:13 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible includes the Old Testament, which was around long before the incarnation of Jesus.
If we were discussing the Jewish Bible, that'd be relevant.
quote:
It sure is odd to see a supposed Christian work so hard to attack the Bible.
It's as weird to me to see someone worship a book and assign it attributes that belong only to God.
quote:
Also, the Bible was complete by the end of the fist century
Individual books that most couldn't read were. The Bible wasn't complete for 400 years. Early Churches also used books like The Epistles of Clement, the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
It's weird that Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of His followers for a generation yet you think it is the linchpin of Christianity. Even the Bible that you think is perfect and contains all sources of Chrostoan truth makes no claims about being the inerrant word of God. But Paul does claim that the Church is the source for all truth
Page 30 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News