Raf

Just curious: how are you distinguishing between "taking things for granted" and "blind faith"?

It was on two soundtracks. Both movies were named Footloose.

Arguably the biggest wasted opportunity in the history of television.

One of the better known moments in this film is a speech that few in the American audience even understood, as it was delivered in a foreign language. Translated, the speech reads: "How did I find myself here? They say my famous lover held down my husband and I cut his head off. But it's not true. I am innocent. I don't know why Uncle Sam says I did it. I tried to explain at the police station but they didn't understand." In the same scene, red scarves indicate guilt. But the character who gave the speech above pulls out a white scarf. The movie took liberties with its source material by having its defining plot conceits and sequences all taking place inside the main character's head.

The Little Mermaid. "Let's Hear It For the Boy"

Technically, they were not the same characters, as the story lines were not connected. But I quibble.

is the fact that a claim defies credibility enough to make that claim an actual error? I would have to say no. Not that I believe for a fraction of a second that people lived to be hundreds of years old. I don't believe such a thing. But an unsubstantiated claim is not the same thing as an actual error as I have used that term in the past. Of course, I am not the arbiter of what is and what is not an error. I leave the final judgment to each reader.

Ah. Then yes

That's a link to part 2. There's obviously a part 1 as well.

The article footnotes another article on the same subject. I'll see if I can find and post it. It offers plenty of support for its view. I can only find it in pdf, and can't figure out how to link it using my Kindle. So google "the firmament and the water above" by Paul Seely.

It is

Not sure I follow your allusion.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Michelle Yeoh Tomorrow Never Dies

A very long way.

Closer, but still no.

This series was supposed to be an allegory about the rise of Nazism, but it was kind of botched. The network that broadcast the pilot never called it a pilot. As a result, audiences were disappointed when the story was not resolved. Then, instead of ordering a season's worth of episodes, the network decided to resolve the story. The resolution performed so well in the ratings that the network decided to order a season of episodes. But with the original storyline resolved, the series' writers had to concoct a rationale to keep the story going. The Nazi allegory was ruined, and audiences promptly rejected the campy storyline that was offered. The show was canceled (euthanized, really) after 18 episodes. The original pilot is still considered a classic in its genre. An attempt to revive the series in recent years met with some critical success, but never gained a wide audience. It lasted two seasons, if you can call it that.

Shall We Dance

First off, thanks. I deeply appreciate your courtesy. I don't know if I want to commit myself to a single definition of error, because that might limit the discussion. In the strictest sense, the firmament is a whopper of an error. We've been to space. But can we imagine that the imagery was poetic and not intended to convey a scientific truth? My opinion is no, we can't. But I certainly respect that other opinions may differ. It's worth pointing out, agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Now, when science and biology teach us that mankind cannot trace its first common female ancestor until tens of thousands of years before Eve would have lived, is that an "error"? I may say yes. You may say no. Ok. Stalemate. There was no worldwide flood. That's an actual error. But wait! Lots of Christians believe the flood of Noah was local, not worldwide. Fine. But it still moved a boat from wherever Noah began his journey to Ararat. Actual error. Did the human race speak one language until languages were confounded at Babel? No. Actual error (and that's one I don't think can even be argued). Back to Noah: how old was he when the flood started? 600 and what? And his sons were what, 30? Because they had to repopulate the earth. So either they were remarkably young to be fathered by a 600 year old man, or they were remarkably old to have wives that could still bear children. It's not history. It's a myth. People didn't live that long. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans. Neat trick. The Chaldeans didn't settle in Ur until centuries after the time of Abraham. Centuries after the time of Moses, in fact (which would mean Moses simply could not have written Genesis). That's an actual error. Even a simple comment like Abraham having camels proves to be an actual error: camels were not domesticated in that area until centuries later. Now, the Bible never actually says Moses wrote Genesis. At least, I don't think it does. But whoever DID write it did so after Chaldeans were in Ur, after camels were domesticated, etc. This was hundreds of years after the time of Moses (whose existence I question, but that's a matter for a subsequent Actual Errors in Exodus thread). Etc. By the way, I'm not saying we should privilege PFALs criteria for God breathed. Actually, if you look at what I wrote, I'm saying the opposite: you have to deny the evidence to maintain such a position. Or you can abandon PFALs criteria and define God breathed differently.

I was not thinking of an Addams family movie. More like a royal family. A big royal family. Not oliver

Monk.

Right track, wrong train. It is a classic musical.

Nope. Way off.

Apologies to PatAnswer, as I obviously skipped right over your post as I was reading this thread. Interesting stuff.

If you're right, you will. And I'll have some splaining to do, I suppose. But then, I'll also have answers to the mountains of questions that led me to finally give up trying to make sense of something that made less and less sense the more I studied it.

This is more of a placeholder than anything else for the moment. It is spawned from a discussion in About the Way about their being no rain before Noah's flood. The consensus on that thread was that TWI got it wrong, that there was rain before the Flood. But other issues were brought up -- for example the teaching by Earl Burton that the universe is encapsulated in a gigantic bubble with water on the other side of it. No, seriously. And when reading Genesis, it is not hard to see where he got this idea. Genesis speaks of a firmament (a solid structure) separating the waters above (in the sky) from the waters beneath. Looking at it from the primeval point of view of Genesis, when they didn't have the slightest inkling what the sky was made of, it's easy to see what's being described here: a flat earth covered by a large dome holding back a wall of water. The sun, moon and stars are IN that dome. Birds fly UNDER it. The firmament is NOT synonymous with what we think of as the sky. If visions of Stephen King dance in your head, you're on the right track, for that is precisely what the Bible describes. Were the authors of Genesis being literal? Or were they being poetic? I don't know for sure. I haven't read all the scholarship on the matter. But I am sure of this: the Bible offers no indication whatsoever that they are NOT being literal. So I'll be describing what the Bible actually says, but I'll keep a very open mind about what it all means -- with an eye on what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written. For those not keeping track, let me be clear at the outset of this thread: I no longer consider myself Christian, and I no longer believe in God. But you need not hold the same view to recognize what many -- Christians and atheists alike -- have realized for a very long time: There are actual errors in the Bible. Not errors of interpretation. Real, documentable, tangible blunders that show Genesis does not pass PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed. For those who remain Christian, the challenge is simple: Deny the evidence and conclude Genesis DOES pass PFAL's criteria, or reject PFAL's criteria. Maybe God-breathed means something else entirely. If the second solution satisfies you, far be it from me to take that away from you. I'm not looking to persuade anyone that there is no God. If it's at all possible, I ask you to separate that proposition from the point I am making, which I will reiterate: There are actual errors in Genesis. What to do with them is up to you. Let's examine them. I probably won't be right about every point I make. But I will be right about many of them, and I suspect if you are honest with yourself, you will agree with that statement (even if you loathe where it has led me). Let us begin...