I'm with you Xena - also enjoying Oliver's posts. I was really enjoying Bosk's posts too, until he got suspended for flaming :-((

If you're still reading this thread Bosk, please come back.

I'm no biblical scholar, so won't try to mix it with these guys (not that "biblical scholarship" necessarily guarantees an ability to argue coherently, as is evidenced by some of the posters here) - but I'll keep reading, and hope that Bosk returns to help take the cement-heads apart.

Oliver,

You're communicating fine - I just find your alyernate positions untenable.

You said: "the jury would have found the perpetrator innocent according to [their] opinions."

Would you accept this decision?

Another example: A woman is raped. The perpetrator admits she said "no" but in his opinion she was just playing hard-to-get and really meant "yes". Should he be convicted?

Scepticism may well sit well with Abelard, but it wouldn't sit well with the rape victim above.

You said: "The next sentence is true. The last sentence is false. We have self-reference. That does not make the sentences without meaning."

In what sense is the next sentence true and the last sentence false? What meaning do they convey? They are nonsense sentences which have as much meaning as "Black is white. White is black."

That you don’t find Abelard's view incoherent is irrelevant to whether it actually is incoherent. Something cannot be A and non-A at the same time. Abelard says nothing can be truly known, but in doing so, he is asserting that he truly knows this. That is a contradiction so Abelard's view must be false.

You said: "Had God stopped the Sun, God would have also had to stop time. Had God stopped time locally, when the Universe was expanding faster than c. Well, the physicists can work it out. But, it would not be very pleasant."

The Bible makes it clear that this was a miracle ie. supernatural ie. not subject to natural law - so the physics is irrelevant.

You argue: "I think the meticulous record keeping Chinese astronomers might noticed a little thing like the Earth stopping its rotation on its axis, even if God suspended inertia."

Joshua is dated to around 1400BC. The Chinese did not begin meticulously recording astronomical events until the first millenium BC, and even then most of their records were destroyed when Emporer Shi Huang Di (221-209BC) became first ruler of China.

Kenny,
Quote "Actually all you’ve done Philo and Aslan is demonstrate I’m right in my assertion that Christians read what they like in the bible and re-invent the meaning of passages when science shows them to be wrong".

We believe the God of Creation to be right, and the Biblical text has supported the facts all the time, but the assumption made by a past theologian has become the focus upon what subsequent commentators have written. Science does not disprove the text, it clarifies the text. Christians from different denominations agree on the Bible when it comes to values of life and behaviour. It is sometimes varied on how these values are applied to society.

The Early Church did not enforce Moses law:

Acts. 15:5 Some of the believers who belonged to the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.”
Ac. 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
Ac. 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:
“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. Ac. 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them...
Ac. 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified
their hearts by faith.
Ac. 15:10 ... why do you try to test God by putting on the
necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers
have been able to bear?
Ac. 15:11 We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Ac. 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to
Barnabas and Paul ...
Ac. 15:13 ... James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me.
Ac. 15:14 Simon [Peter] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.
Ac. 15:15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Ac. 15:16 “`After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent...,
Ac. 15:17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the
Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ [Amos 9:11,12] Ac. 15:18 that have been known for ages. Ac. 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles... Ac. 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food dedicated to idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

The Church established minimal laws for new Christians and certainly did not impose them upon unbelievers.

Kenny,

I don't see where any of those articles you posted disagree with my reasoning. The Reasons article focuses on the myth about NASA finding a missing day, and the AIG one agrees it is a myth. Both the AIG and the Christian Answers articles affirm that this event was a miracle performed by God.

You said: Aslan as you should know old Copernicus wrote down his ideas many years before the official publishing date. He did not give consent until he was on his death bed for fear of persecution from religious hardliners."

Yes, Copernicus wrote his ideas long before he published, but he did not fear his fellow clergymen - he feared the scientific establishment which was committed to Aristotelianism. It was Cardinal Schönberg and another bishop who urged Copernicus to publish his ideas and when it finally appeared in 1543 it contained a dedication to Pope Paul III. Note also that at no time in history has the church ever declared Copernicus’ theory to be heretical. Although the book was placed on the Vatican Index, this did not occur until 1616, and it was removed again in 1620 after some minor changes.

You ask: "So Aslan which bits of the bible are wrong?"

None of it.

Xena and Jane,

Since you are enjoying Oliver's posts so much, perhaps you could respond to the following:
You are raped. The perpetrator admits you said "no" but in his opinion you were just playing hard-to-get and really meant "yes". Should your abuser be convicted? If the jury lets him off because in their opinion he was right to interpret your "no" as a "yes, but I'm playing hard to get", would you accept that decision or would you feel cheated and outraged?

A set-up Aslan, for which there is only one answer as you well know. If you think my answer will win your argument with Oliver, then think again.

I know you will never back down from your beliefs despite any evidence that is offered to you. This is why I prefer to sit back and watch the scholarly exchange between you and Oliver - he has the philosophical education I lack.

Your attempt to coerce myself and Jane is an act of sophistry on your part and reeks of desperation.