Is Bible inerrant

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from kjkent1:

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:

lol, very well done, kj. Eventually the faithful will always tie themselves in semantic knots trying to rationalize that which can never be rationalized. Most are unaware that they're doing it; others, like the Disgusting Liar ZTroll, do it knowing full well the depths of their own intellectual dishonesty.

 

[smilingsynic]

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.

I minored in Bible at an evangelical university and have published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals on the Bible. I am a full-time university professor who happens to trade 4 hours or so a day. I have the best of both worlds.

I studied the Bible thoroughly. That is EXACTLY why I know without a doubt whatsoever it is filled with errors. It is those who have not read the Bible on their own that think it is inerrant.

Of course your faith is not based on "proof". If it were, you'd have no faith.

I am not surprised at all that you have chosen to respond to my objections with ad hominem and insults. What else could you have to respond? Evidence and logic? No.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

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.

Most educated individuals believed in a literal flood until James Hutton and other brave minds challenged the status quo with evidence.

Flood geology as a field is dead.

All of manking was NOT located in Mesopotamia around 4000 years ago (the time of the Genesis flood). Humans had long already migrated from Africa throughout the globe. There is ample archaelogical evidence of such.

The Bible is not to be taken seriously as a book on history, science, or anthropology. As a holy book important in the history of Christianity, it is special, for sure.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from kjkent1:

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:

That is not what was said. It is better to properly read the post of others than to run it through the framework of your own belief set.

Frankly, it does not matter what anyone believes, thinks, expect, feels they deserve, opinions, thinks is right, argues or anything else. Transformation to a state of grace does not originate from people, as they did (and continually) distance themselves from God. It only comes from God. In order to believe, it takes an act of God. All others will remain confused and unknown to God.

In the Old testament from Abraham on, God chose Israel (more particularly, a remnant group within) and no one else. A modest number of Gentiles came into Israel, such as Ruth. In the New Testament, he expanded it to include a modest percentage of believers from other nations, as shown in the visions of Peter, in Acts.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from smilingsynic:

"I minored in Bible at an evangelical university and have published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals on the Bible."

Based on what I have seen, I am not impressed. You are a pedstreian when it comes to a proper understanding.

"I studied the Bible thoroughly. "

Then stop cutting and pasting the thoughts of others

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Quote from smilingsynic:

"I minored in Bible at an evangelical university and have published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals on the Bible."

Based on what I have seen, I am not impressed. You are a pedstreian when it comes to a proper understanding.

"I studied the Bible thoroughly. "

Then stop cutting and pasting the thoughts of others

Oh, please. I have presented ample evidence that the Bible is NOT inerrant, and there is much that I have not even covered. Focus on that, not on me.

Why would I care if you are "impressed."? Clearly I know the Bible better than you. How do I know that? Because you have not overcome my objections.

My thoughts are my own. I do not cut and paste those of others. Indeed, the Bible's errancy is rather apparent if one is honest enough to actually READ it. But most evangelicals really do not study the Bible--they merely parrot what they are told, because they are unable to think critically for themselves.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from rcanfiel:


In the Old testament from Abraham on, God chose Israel (more particularly, a remnant group within) and no one else. A modest number of Gentiles came into Israel, such as Ruth. In the New Testament, he expanded it to include a modest percentage of believers from other nations, as shown in the visions of Peter, in Acts.

Jehovah mandated genocide of those peoples who lived in the Promised Land. Men, women, children, and even infants were slaughtered by God's chosen people.

In other words, the Bible justifies genocide. It also justifies polygamy too, but I digress.

Do you think genocide is morally acceptable? Or is genocide not part of your interpretation of biblical morality.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Jehovah mandated genocide of those peoples who lived in the Promised Land. Men, women, children, and even infants were slaughtered by God's chosen people.

In other words, the Bible justifies genocide. It also justifies polygamy too, but I digress.

Do you think genocide is morally acceptable? Or is genocide not part of your interpretation of biblical morality.

Genocide, schmenocide. The world's overpopulated anyway.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from smilingsynic:

I minored in Bible at an evangelical university and have published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals on the Bible. I am a full-time university professor who happens to trade 4 hours or so a day. I have the best of both worlds.

I studied the Bible thoroughly. That is EXACTLY why I know without a doubt whatsoever it is filled with errors. It is those who have not read the Bible on their own that think it is inerrant.

Of course your faith is not based on "proof". If it were, you'd have no faith.

I am not surprised at all that you have chosen to respond to my objections with ad hominem and insults. What else could you have to respond? Evidence and logic? No.

Me too. I'm a perfesser. Fillology's my game. What's yers? And speaking of logic - I got more logic than you can shake a stick at and I'm saying you got it all wrong. The Bible's inerrant because the Bible says so and since the Bible's inerrant the Bible must be inerrant.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from smilingsynic:

...Focus on that, not on me. Why would I care if you are "impressed."?

Because you felt is necessary to try and impress with your resume. Remember? I minored in Bible at an evangelical university and have published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals on the Bible. I am a full-time university professor who happens to trade 4 hours or so a day. I have the best of both worlds. I studied the Bible thoroughly. And it is quite obvious your being a fulltime prof is not in bibilica studies, but you thought you would sneak it in as if it was impressive...

Clearly I know the Bible better than you. How do I know that?

Because it is an easy and stupid thing to say. You have no clue who you are dealing with. You fall into the trap that the millions do, that they think they know better than God. It says the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, and you are first in line, smug but blind.

"Because you have not overcome my objections."

O, geez. You are such a baby. I dealt with your objections and you ignored them. That is why I do not intend to get into a fight with someone who thinks they know much, but is a neophyte when it comes to debate or scriptural content. The only one you are impressing is yourself.

My thoughts are my own. I do not cut and paste those of others.

You are clearly a liar. The first "objections" you listed were clearly cut and pasted - they are standard "stupid things to say to people who support the Bible." I have been over these countless of times both myself and with many others.

Indeed, the Bible's errancy is rather apparent if one is honest enough to actually READ it.

You could not punch your way out of a paper bag, to "cut and paste" a metaphor.

But most evangelicals really do not study the Bible--they merely parrot what they are told, because they are unable to think critically for themselves.

Most evangelical true believers study, memorize, apply and try to live the content of scriptures. You obviously have spent little time with them. I spent decades.

But I leave the floor to you. I predict your next post, to "get the final word" but say more stupid things, is up to you. You are on ignore. You are a self-righteous ape who is smug without the reason to be so. You are uninteresting to get into a meaningful debate with. You will have an eternity to realize how blind you actually are.