Universal Background?
The idea that it is the universal background of the OT that the world was Flat and had a metal dome isn’t universally accepted. Dr. Vern Poythress in his book (P. 96) “Redeeming Science” gave his thoughts on this issue: 8 Sometimes it is said that the language in the Bible arises against the background of ancient “cosmology” that postulated underlying waters, then solid earth, then a solid “firmament” dome for the sky, then the sea above the firmament (Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above. Part I: The Meaning of raqia‘ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal … Continue reading Universal Background?
The triple-decker universe
The common claim that the entire ANE all believed in a Three Tiered Cosmology and that it is even thought in our own Bible is a common annoying claim. Those who present such ideas miss the simplest observations to maintain their narrative. Steve Hays once wrote: Critics of the Bible like to belabor the triple-decker universe. This overlooks a number of considerations. 1.The Bible employs a double-decker formula (e.g. Gen 2:4) as well as triple-decker formula (e.g. Exod 20:4). Given this stylistic variety, there is no reason to privilege the triple-decker formula over and above the double-decker formula. Continue reading The triple-decker universe
Revolutionary Requirements
At Triablogue I asked whether it was moral for the Revolutionary War to occur. The question behind that is when is an uprising against a municipality morally acceptable? I think Romans 13 was written to a Church that had no ability to defend itself and that is a much different set of circumstances today. I can see that 1 of the requirements would be the right motive. It must not be done for selfish ambition and evil intent. It must come from a good Godly desire for future generations to succeed and to have some form of peace. That they … Continue reading Revolutionary Requirements
Socialized Healthcare?
Are all infinite regresses bad?
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/infinite-regresses-vicious-benign-virtuous.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/another-example-of-a-vicious-infinite-regress-philosophical-investigations-sec-239.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/vicious-and-benign-regresses-again.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/04/infinite-regresses-vicious-and-benign.html Continue reading Are all infinite regresses bad?
Plantinga and Classical Foundationalism
Doxastic vs Nondoxastic theories
In reading about the debates in Epistemology you run across terms like Doxastic and Nondoxastic. These usually show up in discussing the issue of justification. These terms are helpful in classifying different positions in this debate and are important for you to know. Doxastic deals with beliefs. You may read or hear it put as the “Doxastic assumption”. The doxastic assumption (from the Greek doxa, “belief”) refers to the view that the sole factor that justifies a belief for a person is the other beliefs that the person holds. James Porter Moreland; William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian … Continue reading Doxastic vs Nondoxastic theories
ANNOYED PINOY
I have read ANNOYED PINOY’s comments for a long time now and he is an intelligent person. He is loaded with great resources and I would like to recommend him to any readers. Here are his blogs: Gospel Crumbs Miscellaneous Lane [↑↑↑ mostly apologetics related ↑↑↑] Gospel Meals Charismata Matters Trinity Notes Quotes and References Bible Difficulties Answered Remembered Music My Comments on other Blogs Page Two Page One [or here: Page Two; Page One] Continue reading ANNOYED PINOY
You must be logged in to post a comment.