The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would not care about someone’s religious point of view.
Devil King is simply saying that if a creationist puts his/her religion before science, then that makes his/her science of suspect quality. How is that different from what you are saying?

Your point about the Greek NT reduces the mathematical probability of error to infinitesimal levels is also pure speculation. [/B]

Originally posted by inimalist
Tim Rout:

What was the last real peer-reviewed biological article that you read?

Actually, the PhDs I have referenced are all peer reviewed by other experts who have similar credentials and are working in the same field. I don't understand why you think experts in contemporary biology should be critiquing the research of experts in ancient linguistics, textual criticism, theology, history, or archeology.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Devil has provided no evidence that Ross has put his religion ahead of his science. Devil's allegations are unfounded, and clearly not the opinion of the doctoral committee.

That wasn't my point. I was not talking about any other person, but how you and Devil King are the same. Can you not see that?

To be blunt: you are bigoted toward atheists, and Devil King is bigoted toward theists. In other words, you are both bigoted.

That is not meant to say you are a bigot, just that you have bigoted points of view. I really do not mean that as a personal attack, so I apologize to both of you, if ether of you are offended.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You are mistaken. Clearly you are unfamiliar with Daniel B. Wallace, a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. His ground breaking work in the field of textual criticism strongly supports my former proposition.

Again that is not my point. Without the original documents, no one, no matter how many letter in front of their name, can make the claim that you made without the possibility of being wrong.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Actually, the PhDs I have referenced are all peer reviewed by other experts who have similar credentials and are working in the same field. I don't understand why you think experts in contemporary biology should be critiquing the research of experts in ancient linguistics, textual criticism, theology, history, or archeology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That wasn't my point. I was not talking about any other person, but how you and Devil King are the same. Can you not see that?

To be blunt: you are bigoted toward atheists, and Devil King is bigoted toward theists. In other words, you are both bigoted.

That is not meant to say you are a bigot, just that you have bigoted points of view. I really do not mean that as a personal attack, so I apologize to both of you, if ether of you are offended.

Again that is not my point. Without the original documents, no one, no matter how many letter in front of their name, can make the claim that you made without the possibility of being wrong.

Regarding your last point, I am not suggesting there is no potential for error in the NT. I am simply saying textual criticism has greatly reduced this potential. But you make a good point. This is where science ends and faith takes over. The evidence provided by textual criticism takes me 95% of the way there, but the last little step does indeed require faith. However, such an application of faith is based on solid reasoning, not intellectual docility.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thank-you. Oh THANK-YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU!

In this one brief paragraph you have set forth in Technicolor the very point I've been trying to make for the last two weeks.

It doesn't matter to people like you what credentials a scientist holds or how careful his work is. If he's a biblical creationist, you reject him out of hand. Thank-you for making that so abundantly clear. 😱

I didn't reject him out of hand. His actions have caused a number of people; myself, the journalist who wrote the artice, the scientist interviewed for it, to express concern for what he will do with his doctorate, given his history. I rejected him based on the concerns expressed by the gentleman in the article; there was nothing out of hand about it. Th out of hand rejection in this entire conversation comes from your insistence that sciene supports the bible. It does not. The out-of-hand rejection also comes from feceman, who has, along with many other subscribers to the bible, viewed that article as evidence that science as a whole rejects scientists with christian persspectives. This is not the case made by the article, nor representative of the actions of those mentioned in it. What it does illustrate is a scientist's concern that this particular man will use his doctorate, achieved through all the right scientific methodology, to draw unwarrented attention to his biblical beliefs. Just like every scientist YOU have brought to this conversation has done with their degrees.

It was clearly illustrated for you by my post on Gentry. It is easy to find the academic disagreements that counter the proposals made by Austin. And it is an expressed concern surrounding Ross. Not one of which has been denied their degreedoctorate, etc based on their faith, as you so rabidly profess is the result of science and religion meeting.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But all you gave was scripture. The bible cannot give its self authority.

The Koran says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Koran is also the word of god.

The Book of Mormon says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Book of Mormon is also the word of god.

and so on...

My point exactly:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
My book is the most authoritative, because it says so.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Devil and I are certainly biased.

Again, I believe I am the one who pointed out that most scientists are religious/spiritual; you are the one who dismissed this. I am biased only so far as it comes to the philosophy and practice of christianity. My expressed opinion on these individuals, who you bring to the conversation, comes from dozens of scientists, who don't condemn on their faith, only the clearly and apparently intentional skewing of their methods; methods that run contrary to the education they recieved and used to obtain their degrees and doctorates.

The difference is that you default to your faith in all instances, decrying science as out to crucify your faith. This is not the case, as has been illustrated to you time and again in this thread and in this forum. Not only has it been illustrated to you, but it has been illustrated to many individuals who subscribe to your chosen philosophy in life. Science has no agenda; religion does.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Actually, the PhDs I have referenced are all peer reviewed by other experts who have similar credentials and are working in the same field. I don't understand why you think experts in contemporary biology should be critiquing the research of experts in ancient linguistics, textual criticism, theology, history, or archeology.

ok, so what is the last peer reviewed biological work you have read?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so what is the last peer reviewed biological work you have read?

I don't recall. What is the last peer reviewed literary analysis of the Greek New Testament you have read?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Devil and I are certainly biased. There is no denying it. But to suggest that we are bigoted is inappropriate, unless you can demonstrate that the foundational logic of our arguments is volitionally disregardful of the evidence...and you haven't done that.

I didn’t mean to make it seem like an extreme case of bigotry, but I consider statements like the following to be examples religious bigotry.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

I know you are human and make misstates, but if we start refusing to listen to people because of their religious point of view, then we have not made any progress from the dark ages.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Regarding your last point, I am not suggesting there is no potential for error in the NT. I am simply saying textual criticism has greatly reduced this potential. But you make a good point. This is where science ends and faith takes over. The evidence provided by textual criticism takes me 95% of the way there, but the last little step does indeed require faith. However, such an application of faith is based on solid reasoning, not intellectual docility.

OK, I was under the impression that your 100% belief was because of evidence and not faith. My point was that, the 5% is a leap of faith.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I didn’t mean to make it seem like an extreme case of bigotry, but I consider statements like the following to be examples religious bigotry.

I know you are human and make misstates, but if we start refusing to listen to people because of their religious point of view, then we have not made any progress from the dark ages.

OK, I was under the impression that your 100% belief was because of evidence and not faith. My point was that, the 5% is a leap of faith.

Regarding your last:

I have said all along that no Christian can be a Christian without faith. But my faith is based on a reasonable consideration of the facts, not simply the word of a preacher or the opinion of a pious grandmother, as you have sometimes suggested. It is the same reasonable faith that predicts my brakes will work when I step on the pedal. Statistically, there is some small possibility the brakes could fail. There is even a small chance that such a failure could result in a fatal collision. But these infinitesimal improbabilities have yet to stop me from getting in my car and driving to work each morning.

In truth, if one wishes to be more realistic with the numbers, my 5% leap of faith might better be characterized as a .00001% micro-step. The textual evidence in support of the NT is that good.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It is the same reasonable faith that predicts my brakes will work when I step on the pedal. Statistically, there is some small possibility the brakes could fail. There is even a small chance that such a failure could result in a fatal collision. But these infinitesimal improbabilities have yet to stop me from getting in my car and driving to work each morning.

That is not faith, it is inference.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not faith, it is inference.

As you wish. I therefore infer from the evidence that the NT is reliable.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Regarding your last:

I have said all along that no Christian can be a Christian without faith. But my faith is based on a reasonable consideration of the facts, not simply the word of a preacher or the opinion of a pious grandmother, as you have sometimes suggested. It is the same reasonable faith that predicts my brakes will work when I step on the pedal. Statistically, there is some small possibility the brakes could fail. There is even a small chance that such a failure could result in a fatal collision. But these infinitesimal improbabilities have yet to stop me from getting in my car and driving to work each morning.

In truth, if one wishes to be more realistic with the numbers, my 5% leap of faith might better be characterized as a .00001% micro-step. The textual evidence in support of the NT is that good.

A leap of faith is not dependant on the size.

My point that I was getting at is: you are no different then the rest of us. We all believe what we believe, because of a leap of faith. It does not matter how big or small that leap is in our mind. What matters is the leap.

Let me show you: If tomorrow god was proved by science beyond a shadow of a doubt to not exist, you would continued to believe how you believe now. I say this because that leap of faith is like an elastic bridge that will go from 5% to 100% regardless...

Is that not true?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I don't recall. What is the last peer reviewed literary analysis of the Greek New Testament you have read?

I'm not making any claims about the motivations of people in the field of Greek New Testament literary analysis

how can you make claims about the scientists doing work in biology without reading their material?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not making any claims about the motivations of people in the field of Greek New Testament literary analysis

how can you make claims about the scientists doing work in biology without reading their material?

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting the literary evidence in support of the New Testament is therefore valid?

Also, one need not read biology research papers to offer an informed opinion on scientists in general.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A leap of faith is not dependant on the size.

My point that I was getting at is: you are no different then the rest of us. We all believe what we believe, because of a leap of faith. It does not matter how big or small that leap is in our mind. What matters is the leap.

Let me show you: If tomorrow god was proved by science beyond a shadow of a doubt to not exist, you would continued to believe how you believe now. I say this because that leap of faith is like an elastic bridge that will go from 5% to 100% regardless...

Is that not true?

No, it is not true.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No, it is not true.

I am sorry, that your faith is so week.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm sorry. Are you suggesting the literary evidence in support of the New Testament is therefore valid?

ummm, no

I said I am making no claims about it, since it is not something I am informed on

I think you missed all the posts I made about the historical accuracy of a book being useless when addressing the supernatural content within.

One need not find contention with every point made in the bible to see it as nonsense, nor does one need biology or any science to do the same.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Also, one need not read biology research papers to offer an informed opinion on scientists in general.

so I wouldn't actually have to read the bible to make any informed comment about it?

gee, I hope you are some PhD adviser somewhere, because with that attitude I could pick up a degree in everything from early British children's literature to quantum cryptography.

Yes, one must be familiar with the work they are criticizing.