Raf

"If you could go back in time to Germany, before Hitler came to power, knowing what you know now, would you kill him?" ... "What about my question? "Huh? Huh? Oh, you mean the one about Hitler?" "What would you do?" "I don't like this, John. What are you getting at?" "What would you do? Would you kill him?" "All right. All right. I'll give you an answer. I'm a man of medicine. I'm expected to save lives and ease suffering. I love people. Therefore, I would have no choice but to kill the son of a bitch." "You'd never get away alive." "It doesn't matter. I would kill him."

Nope

If chockfull and I can get along, then any two Greasespot posters can get along. AmIrite?

I will be sending you a dry cleaning bill for that one. Coffee stains are very hard to get out of new clothes.

Cap 2 is incredible

Correct

Cross shredded into itsy bitsy pieces would be a fair assessment. Half the rules we have on this site addressed various ways I let him have it. Of course, my views have changed since then, but that's another, longer story. Let's not discuss that particular fellow unless he comes back and is able to defend himself.

MRAP, you were nowhere near a rule violation and never strayed from the topic.

There's a difference between drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and sticking with a presupposition in spite of the evidence. They are not both "accepting a premise."

Considering how many people at the time pretended to be apostles when they were not, I think taking their word for it would be exceedingly problematic. Someone pretending to be Peter wrote a gospel, after all. It's so absurd that no one takes it seriously. But if I were to take the wroter's word for it, I would have to assume it was written by Peter because he said so.

What I'm saying is, just because Peter uses the word "scripture" to describe the writings of Paul does not necessarily mean he is elevating it to the same level as "scripture" the way we use it today. I'll give you an example. Back in 1989/1990, after the Geer split from TWI, Geer wrote a letter to the subscribers to his newsletter and weekly tapes in the United States. I refer to that letter as "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." But when I wrote about it on GSC (or was it Waydale? I don't recall), some folks here were amazed that Geer would have the GALL to write an EPISTLE! They thought it was arrogant as hell of him to do such a thing. Of course, he never called it an epistle. That was MY word, not his. And it was accurate. An epistle is a letter. It doesn't have some kind of glorious meaning. It's a flipping letter. He was no more full of himself than I am writing this post. When WE use the word "epsitle," we bestow on that word a gravitas, an authority, that is missing from the word itself. It just means letter. I wrote a letter. No controversy. I wrote an epistle. Who do I think I am?!?! That's what I mean by Peter referring to Paul's letters as "scripture." I don't see where he's elevating it to some God-breathed status. He's just saying it was a written document. We need to be careful not inject OUR meanings onto the words that THEY used. We need to read it as THEY would have understood it. As for Peter not being the author of Peter, I'll just rest on the consensus of modern scholarship. Whoever wrote that letter (epistle) was not an illiterate fisherman more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew scriptures. I'll refrain from elaborating on the argument here.

You guys are assuming "scriptures" means something magical, as opposed to "stuff that's written down." When Peter (who, by the way, was certainly NOT the apostle Peter), uses the word "scripture," is he using it in our modern sense? Or is he equating Paul's letters with the Torah?

Two people have a wonderful, sappy and melodramatic romance, but their conflicting political views and convictions constantly threaten their happiness. Barbra Streisand provides the sappy melodramatic song and hams her way through the movie. He eventually becomes involved in the first major battle of the American phase of the Vietnam War. Starring Babs, Robert Redford and Mel Gibson.

"And tell me that you'll never leave me [TITLE] and do it again."

"The missiles are flying. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!"

Minions

As for the article you posted, I'll have to take the time to read it carefully, but the problem remains that no matter when the census was, the governosrhip of Quirinius simply did not overlap with the time of Herod, so the problem is going to remain no matter what Josephus wrote. Again, it will take more than a brief glimpse at the article for me to address it. BUT, kudos on finding it. In doing so, you implicitly acknowledge the need to address proposed errors to see if they are actual or apparent. "Don't take my word for it."

Way to twist the premise into a pretzel: I don't "need" an error in Luke. I recognize one. Luke is the one who erred in why Joseph went to Bethlehem. If you're content with the existence of that error, then we are in agreement. If you must insist he did not make an error, provide your proof. Wild speculation of the sort in every effort at an explanation I've encountered is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's baseless, wishful thinking that only has to be injected into the discussion to preserve a premise of inerrancy that the Bible doesn't even make about itself.

Then why offer it? As evidence that it's not really an error? But the article doesn't refute my point. At best, it makes the argument that Luke was a careful historian, in the face of evidence he was not. If you begin with the conclusion that Luke was a careful historian, I suppose you have to "leave the door open," but it's begging the question. It's assuming your conclusion and projecting it onto the evidence, rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence. Abandon inerrancy, and the solution is simple: Luke was just wrong about that detail. His reason for Joseph needing to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem is just wrong. That's it. No harm done. It was a mistake. What facts remain? Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just like Matthew says. Matthew gives no indication of a journey to Bethlehem. But he doesn't rule it out either. He just doesn't address it. Luke's historical error of why Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem does not negate the premise that he did so. Problem solved. Unless you just can't have an error in Luke or your Bible will fall to pieces. Then you have to wedge ahistorical information into the account. Quirinius was governor twice (no he wasn't. The records are complete in that regard). He held another office that Luke called "governor" (which would be a mistake, again making rather than refuting my point). We STILL would have the problem of a census that requires people to travel from where they live to a place where their great ancestors lived, for no discernible reason. At some point you just have to concede that it didn't happen that way. You only have to leave the door open to defend inerrancy. But why? Why defend inerrancy when allowing for an error answers every question? I submit that you would have to do more than "allow for that possibility." It absolutely demands for it to be the only possible solution. If there's an error, and it's really an error, not just apparent, then the only possible argument is that it wasn't in the original. If a resolution eventually surfaces, then it's just an apparent error. But in this particular case, I think it's highly improbable that you're going to find a resolution. Anyway, I'm approaching nitpicking territory (if I haven't crossed into it already), so I'll stop here on this point.

If you read that page carefully, you will see quite clearly, I think, that it makes my point quite nicely. In order to make Luke fit what we know from history, you have to change Luke or make up history. The conclusion of the article is "future unearthed evidence will vindicate Luke! You just watch! (To which I'll respond: Don't hold your breath). I'm sorry, but when you say you see no problem with believing the original inspired texts are inerrant (which you said in post 160), then you are implying that errors and contradictions, if they are actual and not just apparent, MUST be absent from the original inspired texts. So, yeah, you kinda ARE appealing to them in the terms of this discussion. But I agree with where you leave things off: "I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else." That statement is not substantively different from my saying that you can get there by faith but not by reason alone.

Yes, to prove inerrancy. Or at least to demonstrate it. If inerrancy is true, then all claims of errors must be addressed. An appeal to the "original inspired texts" is an appeal to the unknown and is a logical fallacy. It also assumes what you're setting out to prove, which is another fallacy. "The original inspired texts contains no errors or contradictions." Fine, by itself, but when evidence is presented that appears to refute that position, you need to address that evidence. You can never "prove" the Bible contains no errors. It's not an affirmative claim. It's my burden to prove that it does. But my assertion is quite easily proven. I've already given two examples: one error and one set of contradictions, both concerning the circumstances around the birth of Christ. Allowing for the possibility that the original inspired text was inerrant simply dodges the issue. It doesn't address it. Anytime someone points out an error or contradiction, you're going to say "well, the error or contradiction wasn't there in the original inspired texts." Fine, produce the texts. "I can't." Well, how many errors and contradictions have to be pointed out before you're willing to concede that your premise is faulty? If you can't answer that question, we have nothing to discuss. But you're not going by reason. You're going by faith. And again, that's fine. You go ahead and do that. Sure, it's possible the original gospel of Luke contained no reference to Quirinius. But where's our proof of that? Is it missing from any copies? Any evidence at all? I concede that some apparent errors are not errors at all. That's not the point. The point is that many, many, many errors are actually honest-to-goodness errors. That you have to appeal to the invisible non-existent original text to address such errors... doesn't address those errors. It merely dodges the question. If I told you I've never been sick or injured, and you produce a hospital bill showing I was admitted for three days in 1991 for a broken leg, then I have to address that evidence or admit that my premise is flawed. I don't get to say "well, in the original bill it shows I was never admitted; it was just a routine checkup." You have hard evidence that I'm wrong. You have evidence I had a broken leg. I don't get to just say "No, I didn't." I have to address your evidence! The evidence that there are actual errors (not "apparent errors," but bonafide lulus) in the Bible is abundant. If you're going to assert the book contains no errors or contradictions, then it is your burden to address each and every one. You might address some successfully. But you're going to find that you won't be able to address most of them, and appealing to the originals only serves to undermine any confidence in the book we DO have. Which is fine by me, but I'm not the one calling it God-breathed by any definition.

Walk Like a Man, by the Four Seasons ?

How about both? Saving Private Ryan Giovanni Ribisi Avatar

I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Arrow or Flash, but not bad by any stretch. I don't know the comics, so I'm not familiar with Rip Hunter, but I think placing him in 2166 seems a little too soon. But whatever.

Cheating a little here because it's a two-word overlap. Two people have a wonderful, sappy and melodramatic romance, but their conflicting political views and convictions constantly threaten their happiness. He eventually becomes involved in the first major battle of the American phase of the Vietnam War.