Jim Eisele wrote:
> 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.
Good!
Now that you know that your problem is with George and not with me, perhaps
you can have the guts to challenge 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 :-)
As I said above, please have the guts to first talk to George. If you and he
cannot work it out, I'll be glad to mediate -- but don't expect me to side
with you.
>
>
> >> 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.
And I quoted you.
>
>
> >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.
We can certainly stop at that point, can we not? (since all we have are
translations -- and not originals.)
> 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.
So what good is that, if our current translations are seriously flawed?
> This is the main point of our discussion. Not these little
> sidetracking "jabs." Please try to refrain from excess emotion in your
> next post.
Was this said by Jim Eisele -- the model of calm and pose?
ROFLOL
Thanks Wendee!
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 21:42:11 EDT