(September 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm)frankiej Wrote: I don't know how you figured this one out.
I could apply that to anything...
The age of the flat world theory is irrelevant to its truthfulness.
It’s an actual logical fallacy that’s why, appeal to novelty. Just because something is newer does not logically mean it is better or true.
As to the pont about the flat earth, we can directly observe the shape of the earth now; we cannot directly observe the claims of the Bible because they are historical so the analogy is false.
(September 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: I meant uneducated by TODAY'S standard. We know more about science and medicine than Luke and Paul ever did. In the end, they were still men. By appealing to scripture you are appealing to their opinion.
I would disagree, they were far more disciplined in their studies than common day people today, Paul could speak and write at least three languages (probably even four), and not many people can do that today. Saying that scripture is merely their opinions is begging the question because you are assuming that scripture’s claim to be something other than mere opinion is false a priori.
