Walt writes
>The reason that Walt did not answer your question is because,
>as usual, your avoided 90% of a post
Thanks for the communication. At least I know where you are
coming from now. Very often, I don't respond to parts of a post.
There are a number of reasons for this.
A) Perhaps I agree with a part of the post, but not so
completely to warrant comment.
B) Perhaps I disagree with a part of the post, but not so
completely to warrant comment.
C) I intentionally try to keep my posts short. These posts go
out to a number of people.
But, you have asked why I avoided 90% of a post. Mostly, because
I felt it would unnecessarily consume time. But, since you have
pressed the issue:
>Jim Eisele wrote:
>> A) This doesn't seem to be the proper forum for undermining
>> the Bible.
>First of all, complain to George Murphy who made the statement I
>responded to.
That was not a discussion that I wished to have. I highly respect
George. And, I made a judgment that it was not the time nor the
place to get into a debate with him.
>Second, who suddenly appointed you to determine what issues may or may
>not be discussed? If I am out line, Terry will will bounce the post. If
>you want to be the editor, talk to him.
No one appointed me anything. I tend to get ruffled when people seem
to be undermining the Bible. Sometimes, I call them on it. And yes,
as one participant of the list, I don't think this is the place for
undermining the Bible. In my opinion, you are. You disagree, but
won't answer my question (at least not yet :-)
>> B) If you are going to claim that there are errors in the
>> Bible, please tell us why you think an omnipotent God
>> would allow them.
>Since you recently said:
>> Could it be that Bible translators make presuppositions. Who is
>> correct? The NIV folks, or the NASB and the RSV folks?
>>
>> Certainly, both cannot be correct. The proper translation is
>> either "one day" or "the first day."
>>
>> I'm going with the NASB. I guess the NIV folks just figured no one
>> would notice. Wouldn't it be nice if Bible translators didn't
>> promote misunderstanding? Maybe ONE DAY I'll get a chance to make
>> my feelings known to someone who has decision-making power.
>Let me know when you, Jim Eisele, personally declare which version of
>the Bible is completely error free so that I can be certain only to use
>that version.
I have never claimed that any particular translation of the Bible is
completely error-free. Even if it was, we would still err in
interpreting it. However, the Bible claims that all Scripture is
inspired, or God-breathed. To me, this means that the originals were
inerrant. This is the main point of our discussion. Not these little
sidetracking "jabs." Please try to refrain from excess emotion in your
next post.
Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 16:06:01 EDT