Is Bible inerrant

Turok · Dec 16, 2007

Rcan:
>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.

And of course, the "true" ones aren't judgmental either, are they.

JB

smilingsynic · Dec 16, 2007

Quote from 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.

More...

How do you know God believes the Bible is inerrant? The Bible did not become the Bible until the fourth century, after all (Oh, you didn't know that. Not surprised).

I find it ironic that you call me self-righteous when your posts smack of that kind of attitude. Your name calling, insults, and hypocrisy are what I would expect from a so-called Bible believing Christian. Unfortunately, the movement is filled with them: Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, and the list goes on.

And, no, you have not overcome my objections. Let me reiterate a bit.

The Bible is in ERROR when it speaks of Noah's Ark and a worldwide flood. This is certainty. If the flood had happened, there would be ample evidence. But there is not. Hence, the Bible is in error. It cannot be inerrant.

The first (of two) creation accounts in the Book of Genesis is in error. Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence from the geological history of the earth that species appeared over millions of year, not over a week, and not six thousand years ago.

How could plants be created before the sun, if plants need the sun, because of photosynthesis? You never even tried to answer that one.

The Bible is in error when it calls bats birds. They are MAMMALS. You did not even try that one either.

There are literally HUNDREDS of errors in the Bible. Indeed, when it comes to science, it is more wrong than right. That is to be expected, since the books were written before modern science.

Aristotle was wrong about a lot, but he was still an important thinker. Likewise, the Bible is wrong about a lot, but it is still an important book.

All of your insults cannot change the fact that the Bible is a flawed collection of books and is not inerrant. You may believe it all you like, just like some may believe in the Spaghetti Monster, or in Vishnu, but belief does not make it so.

rcanfiel · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from Turok:

Rcan:
>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.

And of course, the "true" ones aren't judgmental either, are they.

JB

A) had nothing to do with post

B) Everyone is judgemental. aren't they?

stu · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from rcanfiel:

...
Frankly, it does not matter what anyone believes, thinks, expect, feels they deserve, opinions, thinks is right, argues or anything else.

In order to believe, it takes an act of God
...

Ok, so it does not matter that someone thinks they believe , even that they feel they believe, or that they believe they believe. Because in order to believe, you believe, it takes something else.

Makes Catch 22 seem somewhat incomplete.

Turok · Dec 17, 2007

Rcan:
>:A) had nothing to do with post

You'd like to think so wouldn't you. See below.

>B) Everyone is judgemental. aren't they?

Hmmm... think of your inclusion of the word "true" in your previous statement and then read the sermon on the mount. If you can't make the connection, I can't help you.

JB

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from kjkent1:

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.

I see what you are saying.

What I had read is that there was a significant flood, and evidence for it, in the Mesopotamian region at the end of the last Ice Age which could have been 10-20,000 years ago, which is pretty good timing. Here is an example of what scholars say happened in North American for example:

http://environment.newscientist.com...tream-to-a-halt.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

I believe they call the above the collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

For example, notice that scholars have found some flooding phenomenon around 7000 BC that they are struggling to explain:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9743.htm

This gives some more details about the Soviet team that went into the region and found evidence of Flooding around 7600 BC and this sounds like the same event as the above:

http://www.haraldfranzen.com/articles/noah.htm

But I agree that I am struggling to find anything older than 10,000 years ago at this point. I'll just have to keep digging.

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 17, 2007

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.

Then you also know that inerrancy is not necessarily a requirement at all schools...

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from smilingsynic:

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.

You like to do a lot of chest-thumping, don't you?

I understand what you're saying, but these are very poor examples. With a little research you can come up with a much stronger case.

kjkent1 · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I see what you are saying.

What I had read is that there was a significant flood, and evidence for it, in the Mesopotamian region at the end of the last Ice Age which could have been 10-20,000 years ago, which is pretty good timing. Here is an example of what scholars say happened in North American for example:

http://environment.newscientist.com...tream-to-a-halt.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

I believe they call the above the collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

For example, notice that scholars have found some flooding phenomenon around 7000 BC that they are struggling to explain:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9743.htm

This gives some more details about the Soviet team that went into the region and found evidence of Flooding around 7600 BC and this sounds like the same event as the above:

http://www.haraldfranzen.com/articles/noah.htm

But I agree that I am struggling to find anything older than 10,000 years ago at this point. I'll just have to keep digging.

Well, as I've mentioned several times, it's not necessary to prove the Bible literally true, because, if God exists, He's not subject to scientific proofs. He could make both science and theism simultaneously true despite any perceived contradiction, because, well...because He's God.

I really don't understand why the faithful seem to require proof for their position of faith. That seems contradictory in itself.

My view is that the Bible was written by men who took mostly hearsay evidence from their ancestors and did the best that they could to reconcile their limited historical view with their faith.

A person of faith could nonetheless insist that God has placed His imprimatur on the Book and consequently, it is literally true, despite any contradiction with scientific evidence.

My only issue with theists who insist that the Bible is true, is if they are of the ilk who must also insist that scientific knowledge is false, in order to sustain their faith. That is equally a contradiction, because if they are truly faithful, then they don't need scientific accuracy to sustain them.

Scientists require faith in their ability to measure reality, and faith that the universe is logically consistent. So, everyone needs faith -- it's just different faith.

Personally, I like the idea of a guy in red and white drag, flying around on a sleigh with eight reindeer, carrying gifts to good little girls and boys. Dosn't have to be true. Just has to get me through the cold winter nights.

smilingsynic · Dec 17, 2007

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You like to do a lot of chest-thumping, don't you?

I understand what you're saying, but these are very poor examples. With a little research you can come up with a much stronger case.

One only needs to point out ONE error to refute the notion that the Bible is inerrant. ONE. I have provided several, and there are literally hundreds.

You have not demonstrated why my evidence is insufficient. Please do so. I invite criticism of my evidence (saying that I engage in chest-thumping is essentially irrelevant).

The answer to the question "Is the Bible inerrant?" is no. :-)