Is Bible inerrant

[smilingsynic]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Quote from kjkent1:
Funny thing. The Bible is the first place to mention that the earth was round, turns, and is suspended in space without support. Along with several hundred fulfilled prophecies, something that no other thing is history even comes within 5% of. Your problem is, you think you can have a battle of wits with the infinite, when you haven't even graduated from potty training.

[/B]

The earth has ends/edges, according to Job 37:3. How can something that is round have edges and ends.

According to Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7, the earth has four corners. How can something that is round have corners?

I Samuel 2 says the earth rests on pillars, and I Chronicles 16:30 says that the earth will not be moved. How are these statements at all consistent with what is definitively known about this planet?

The so-called prophecies are vague and lack specificity. Much like modern psychics you see on Court TV and on Oprah. Nostradamus too.

If you want more specifics, I will happily oblige, but I don't want to pick a fight that will destroy your faith, unless that is what you want.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from stu:

In the end, all Creator characters fit that description. Some were just created by those artists at much earlier dates than the others.. There is nothing logically credible about an entity not defined other than, - It doesn't exist but created the Universe. It 's Assertion based on imagination only and not with any supporting logical credibility.Made more apparent when compared against stuff which does appear to exist and could have kick started the Universe..
[ my edit to the reference }
So your argument is, science amounts to nought because although science proves stuff, there is a piece(s) of information or knowledge science has not affirmed ?There is NO information about 'the Supernatural' it is not defined past non-existent, it proves not a thing, so for that you do not account the Supernatural as nought, but rather science instead. Logical credibility?No Hans, that's a description of what some proponents for religion often do. Big Bang Singularity is Science. Pre-Big Bang speculation is not.Religion is not Science. Using the word science in a religious title , does not science make.
[my edit to the reference ]
Ruling them in to rule them straight out again because they. "were invented after the fact ".Ok, . but so was 'the Supernatural.'It's sounding to me as if you only have a purely philosophical response to this. The "Now" you describe is Time as a conceptual relativity from the point of known consciousness, is it not?. Should the Earth Collide with Mars (is that a song?) , there is no reason that "Now" would not occur at the same designated position, as part of an Eternal Universe,.without any conscious reference to time..So it's "All that exists +1" . I really am not being facetious here ... but have you heard of Gilbert? But anyway, who says you are not already in a Universe that is not Time dependant ?. From a personal view time is important. But The Universe, and time dependant? Why? t=0 through n billions of eons to t=0 through n billions etc ...Eternally ...is not time dependant....
Assuming all things have to have a reason is, I suggest most respectfully, a very big mistake.Quite, so Nothing would not be something Supernatural ..

By your definition above for Nothingness, 'maybe' is not a possibility.
...Isn't that usually referred to as the unknown? Making the unknown sound more exotic with words like 'Supernatural' still does nothing but leave things exactly as they were. Unknown .
....which would inevitably confirm, what you were calling Supernatural, was never there at all . .A component of quantum events would be an explanation of Natural occurrences The Universe - all that is and all that happens in and of it.

You surmounted what you said was insurmountable ("Nothing") to the satisfaction of your argument.... by your assertion of "the Supernatural " ..
I would suggest though , Minimal definition that provides no specifics is at best conjecture, not explanation.


The implication would appear to be, thinking on its own doesn't prove anything.

I agree, but we were not discussing whether it is meaningful to speculate or not, we were looking at on what grounds such speculations are considered to be logically credible.
We seem to agree the meaning of "Nothing " is abstract .We don't seem to agree the "Supernatural" is abstract .

But it is, (you declare it to be but do not accept it is) , and furthermore it is meaningless in this context, because everything that there is, whether it be these abstract definitions of 'not existing' whilst contradictorily being (existing) 'a-temporally', would in any event were they ever known of , be Natural occurrences...

From what you have said about it having no definitions , the Supernatural remains no more logically credible or any more possible than when we started, and really, it is not explained as being anything much more than the conjoining of two separate words. The purpose of prefixing an existing word with another , one might hope, would result in something at least , which had an intention of being definable.

Super-Natural surely is actually nothing but an expression for the unknown parts of the Natural, in all its magnificent glory.. Supernatural is predominately a useful word to encompass everything extraordinary and imaginable...But to associate ' the Supernatural to anything more, to an entity, or as something non-existent, does the entity nor the word any justice, nor attributes any possibility or credibility to it any better than assigning a comic book character does.. Possibly Superman is more to do with "the Supernatural" than the White Rabbit in Alice's Wonderland, because he can do superhuman things, but that says nothing about any logical credibility , nor does it explain anything at all.

If a Creator is to be Supernatural , then It will certainly have to share a non definability you gave It, with a myriad of non existing indefinable entities through to a single other... the non-definable Supernatural Creator which Created the Creator. But that's where the Supernatural leads things. Like so many non substantive articulation. Just begging more questions, not explaining anything..

I spent 2 hours on a response to your post only to have it cancelled because it was too long.

Maybe I'll take another whack at it later.

Hans

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Your discussion is the equivalent of someone who sneezes his brains through his left ear.

Your problem is, you think you can have a battle of wits with the infinite, when you haven't even graduated from potty training.

Santa will be bringing you a lump of coal. Use it well.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from rcanfiel:



If there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, then the Bible is errant.

Keep in mind that there a lot of Christians (like myself) who believe in a local flood. This is in harmony with the Bible, geological evidence and gets rid of all the difficulties that skeptics have with the global flood.

I am pointing out that when you say that the Bible is errant based on the fact you can disprove a global flood really does nothing because a local flood has some evidence for it geologically and, as another poster pointed out, anthropologically.

In other words, disproving a local flood will be quite impossible rendering your overall argument above ineffective...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from smilingsynic:


The story in Genesis is NOT about a local flood. Local floods do not cover mountain tops. Local floods do not kill off all living creatures on earth (except for those lucky enough to be in Noah's Ark).

No, it really could be about a flood in just the Mesopotamian region, which is where all of mankind was located at the time according to the Bible. And, again, this is the position of a lot of Christians. Flood Geology is a relatively new, even 20th century American phenomenon.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Keep in mind that there a lot of Christians (like myself) who believe in a local flood. This is in harmony with the Bible, geological evidence and gets rid of all the difficulties that skeptics have with the global flood.

I am pointing out that when you say that the Bible is errant based on the fact you can disprove a global flood really does nothing because a local flood has some evidence for it geologically and, as another poster pointed out, anthropologically.

In other words, disproving a local flood will be quite impossible rendering your overall argument above ineffective...

The Black Sea flood is proposed to have occured 5600 BC. Pottery was introduced in Japan in 10,000 BC.

So, a local Black Sea high water episode will not satisfy Biblical requirements. You will need something considerably more expansive, to support inerrancy.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from smilingsynic:

The earth has ends/edges, according to Job 37:3. How can something that is round have edges and ends.

According to Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7, the earth has four corners. How can something that is round have corners?

I Samuel 2 says the earth rests on pillars, and I Chronicles 16:30 says that the earth will not be moved. How are these statements at all consistent with what is definitively known about this planet?

The so-called prophecies are vague and lack specificity. Much like modern psychics you see on Court TV and on Oprah. Nostradamus too.

If you want more specifics, I will happily oblige, but I don't want to pick a fight that will destroy your faith, unless that is what you want.

Sorry, I saw the same website that you cut and pasted from. Try using your own brain and think. I have read the scripture end to end. How about you?

And the debates with people like you are farcical, because they somehow think their own excessively limited viewpoint enables them to comment on a book that was written particularly to prevent them from undersstanding "They will look an not see, they shall listen but not hear" "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing." I have had plenty of such "debates", and it is always sad, because their concept of an open mind, is to be a "skeptic" and cut and paste from websites instead of doing their own research. I have seen them all.

My faith is not based on "proof". I have seen too much to know the truth, and see that people think they are self-clever about things they know nothing about.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from smilingsynic:

The earth has ends/edges, according to Job 37:3. How can something that is round have edges and ends.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Ends of the Earth, another way of referring to the extreme points of the world "

According to Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7, the earth has four corners. How can something that is round have corners?

Look in the mirror, at your head

I Samuel 2 says the earth rests on pillars.

‘for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them;’

The earth has its foundations on which it is laid, and its pillars by which it is supported; but these are no other than the power and providence of God; otherwise the earth is hung upon nothing, in the open circumambient air: and that God can and does do this may well be thought, and to do all the above things in providence and grace, related in the preceding verses; in the support, and for the proof of which, this is observed. Figuratively, the pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth (Zech. 10:4, Ps 47:9) and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God, and especially ministers of the Gospel (see Rev. 3:12, 1Tim. 3:15, Gal 2:9, Pr 9:1).

and I Chronicles 16:30 says that the earth will not be moved.

You are welcome to try

The so-called prophecies are vague and lack specificity.

You say this because you looked at them all, and verified this, or are you a lemming and just parroted this from someone else?

If you want more specifics, I will happily oblige, but I don't want to pick a fight that will destroy your faith, unless that is what you want.

You are not worth the effort. Don't worry, I will let you post freely, but I do not plan to waste time reading them.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Sorry, I saw the same website that you cut and pasted from. Try using your own brain and think. I have read the scripture end to end. How about you?

And the debates with people like you are farcical, because they somehow think their own excessively limited viewpoint enables them to comment on a book that was written particularly to prevent them from undersstanding "They will look an not see, they shall listen but not hear" "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing." I have had plenty of such "debates", and it is always sad, because their concept of an open mind, is to be a "skeptic" and cut and paste from websites instead of doing their own research. I have seen them all.

My faith is not based on "proof". I have seen too much to know the truth, and see that people think they are self-clever about things they know nothing about.

In other words: In order to believe one must come to know God -- but in order to come to know God one must already believe! :eek:

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Keep in mind that there a lot of Christians (like myself) who believe in a local flood. This is in harmony with the Bible, geological evidence and gets rid of all the difficulties that skeptics have with the global flood.

I am pointing out that when you say that the Bible is errant based on the fact you can disprove a global flood really does nothing because a local flood has some evidence for it geologically and, as another poster pointed out, anthropologically.

In other words, disproving a local flood will be quite impossible rendering your overall argument above ineffective...

My absolute confidence in the Bible's errancy is not squarely based on the flood. It is based on NUMEROUS errors.

Noah's Ark was supposedly around 500 feet long. There have been over 500 species of dinosaurs alone that have been located. Plus all of the other animals, how did they all get into the ark? (Answer--there WAS no ark)

Did he and others literally live HUNDREDS of years? Methuselah supposedly lived 969. Did he and other humans live to be 900 years? (Answer--Of course not.)

According to Genesis 1, plants were created before the sun. Is this scientifically possible, since plants through photosynthesis derive life from the sun? (Answer--No. Bible's wrong again).

Are bats birds? (Answer--Of course not. They're mammals. But Leviticus says they're birds. Gee, I wonder who's right there?)

The Bible speaks literally of dragons, unicorns, and flying serpents. They must exist, right? (Answer--Of course not, despite what creationist/fed prisoner Kent Hovind says).

I have about a hundred more errors on the top of my head (remember, I studied the Bible as a student at an evangelical university), but football is on.

The Bible is not inerrant. It is a perfectly human book, filled with the errors that often appeared in a pre-scientific age.

If you want to walk around ignorant, fine by me.