Is Bible inerrant

Quote from kjkent1:

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.
More...

The existence of God cannot be neither proven nor disproven by empirical evidence.

The Bible is different. It is a collection of books containing statements, many of which can be proven or disproven by empirical evidence.

Those who believe the Bible is inerrant cannot claim that this debate is about faith. If one statement in the Bible is false, then it is not inerrant. One could then reasonably question the veracity of the whole thing.
 
Excuse me, but how do you know that information in the Bible is to be taken literally and empirically in part of the Bible?

Isn't one of the first instructions to take the Bible on faith as the word of God?

Is the Bible supposed to be a course on practicing empiricism, or a means to deepening faith in God?

If anyone is applying empiricism to what is taught by followers of the Bible to be accepted with faith seems like they are confused and just looking for a fight with those who are using faith as their approach.

The problem is always when religious or atheistic try to push their beliefs on others, and use political processes to gather sufficient power to force others to conform to their will and their own personal dogmas.

Quote from smilingsynic:

The existence of God cannot be neither proven nor disproven by empirical evidence.

The Bible is different. It is a collection of books containing statements, many of which can be proven or disproven by empirical evidence.

Those who believe the Bible is inerrant cannot claim that this debate is about faith. If one statement in the Bible is false, then it is not inerrant. One could then reasonably question the veracity of the whole thing.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Excuse me, but how do you know that information in the Bible is to be taken literally and empirically in part of the Bible?

Isn't one of the first instructions to take the Bible on faith as the word of God?

Is the Bible supposed to be a course on practicing empiricism, or a means to deepening faith in God?

If anyone is applying empiricism to what is taught by followers of the Bible to be accepted with faith seems like they are confused and just looking for a fight with those who are using faith as their approach.

The problem is always when religious or atheistic try to push their beliefs on others, and use political processes to gather sufficient power to force others to conform to their will and their own personal dogmas.
More...

If the Bible is to be taken on faith as the Word of God, then why all the factual errors and inconsistencies?

I might have "faith" that the Dolphins are going to make the playoffs, but empirical reality suggests something different!
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

The existence of God cannot be neither proven nor disproven by empirical evidence.

The Bible is different. It is a collection of books containing statements, many of which can be proven or disproven by empirical evidence.
More...

I agree with you. You are the very few who try to support their statements with evidence. I think you have convinced me that there are incorrect statements in the bible.
 
Quote from kjkent1:



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.
More...


Definately so.


Here is reason to have faith and believe in Him....


  • Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus

    Editorial Page, New York Sun, 1897

    We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:

    I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
    Virginia O'Hanlon

    Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

    He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

    Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

    You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

    No Santa Claus?Thank God he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!

******

A mysterious magical supernatural old man with a great white beard. He lives in the skies, in all worlds, separate and part of ours, that exist before time . Always invisible, no one has ever seen Him, but it is known what He looks like. He is supernatural and He is a Creator. Living with other supernatural beings who do his bidding, He commands the majesty of the Heavens to travel the Earth. He knows ever hair on every head and is most concerned with the moral standards of people and records all their deeds to reward and punish them accordingly. He is everywhere at the same time, and leaves evidence of where He has been.

A description of God or Santa?
 
You are once again applying empiricism to an area where specific instructions have been given by the experts in the Bible to suspend empiricism as an approach to finding God...yes the experts in the Bible are the theists, not the atheists.

It is as if you are judging the music of a symphony by covering your ears so that you can't hear the music and only using the sense of sight to judge the music by looking at the people playing their instruments in the symphony.

It is common knowledge that the teaching of religion that implements the Bible as an authority states that whatever truth is in the Bible is not gained via empirical faithless review of the scriptures of the Bible, but rather the truth of God is revealed to the faithful readers of the Bible.

Now, you don't have to buy into that, I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve what the faithful Bible readers accept into their hearts about their God, but you are involved in the judgment of the personal faith of others, which is usually an attempt to in some way erase the hidden doubts about your own faith...

Quote from smilingsynic:

If the Bible is to be taken on faith as the Word of God, then why all the factual errors and inconsistencies?

I might have "faith" that the Dolphins are going to make the playoffs, but empirical reality suggests something different!
More...
 
Quote from kjkent1:

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.
More...

Agree with most of what you said, just not some of your endpoints. One of my endpoints is that the Bible is an incredible book and incredibly accurate and comparable to other religious books.

What I mean by that is that it has a good history, for example, in archaeology and was considered accurate enough to use by a number of prominent scholars. Furthermore, it is remarkably accurate in the order of the events in the first verses of Genesis as to the order of the events in the universe, solar system and earth.

But, yes, I agree with the statement that the Bible was never intended as a science textbook. There is a Proverb that states, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of kings to uncover it." In other words, God gave us a brain for a reason...
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

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. :-)
More...

But you're missing my point a lot of Christians do not even hold to the idea that the Bible is inerrant nor is that critical to their faith. That's just one reason why I find it hard to believe that you really studied much Bible at a Christian university. Otherwise, you would know the difference between inerrancy, infallibility and applications to "faith and practice" that some denominations and seminaries have taken.
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Faith in the unknowable ("God") as a force has over history been much more destructive than that in reason.

The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment--in many ways, one and the same--have done more for humanity over the last 400 or so years than "faith" in God or in gods did in the previous 4000.

Modern medicine, technology, tolerance, freedom--these are come from reason, not from revelation.

Faith in reason makes much more sense than faith in God.
More...

I'll agree with you. I will define the unknowable ("God") as the God of this world, who allegedly makes this world, and maintains it through miscellaneous "force". This "God" is truly unknowable because it does not really exist, though it is believed in and fought over.

The 'fact' is, the God of this world, and therefore the God of the Bible, is an idol in the mind of the Son of God. It is an idol worshipped in the "temple", which is the mind of the Son. It serves to blind the Son to the vision of his true Father, replacing his Father in his awareness. It is a kind of "abomination" that desecrates the temple and virtually destroys the mind of the Son. That worship gives way to the making of this world, in which conflict, lack, and death rule.

It is from this concept of "God" that I would "save" you. That is, as long as belief in such a God is maintained, it's effects upon the mind will be devastating, producing untold conflict and pain.

Realize that our Father and the "God" of the Bible are not the same thing.

Reason can be used to help you recognize truth when you are presented with it. All you can do with truth is to recognize, accept and appreciate it.

Truth about God was trashed in order for this world to be built. The world is irrational. It is logical but insane. Reason is like logic, but is, well...reasonable! It leads to truth because it is reasonable. The effects of reason will always be good, even temporarily in man's existing conditions.

But that is not it's purpose. It leads to truth which leads you out of this world to freedom. Freedom cannot be found in this world, and reason will not inform you that it can be found here.

There is a "knowable" God. You once knew Him. He has been long banished from your memory...far away from your awareness. You cannot know this God while you value the idols of perception. He can only be known, never percieved.

Jesus
 
Shoe:
>But you're missing my point a lot of Christians do not
>even hold to the idea that the Bible is inerrant nor is
>that critical to their faith

My goodness Shoe,

A: I have no idea where you find the christians you hang out with, but they are nothing like the christians I'm familiar with - not that that's a bad thing :-)

B: Sometimes I believe you have a very small world view -- that is you have a tendency to think that the rest of this 'christian nation' views theology the same as you -- and that couldn't be further from the truth.

There are gigantic overwhelming swaths of this country (take Southern Baptists for example) where their basic theology DEMANDS that they believe the bible is inerrant and critical to their faith.

>That's just one reason why I find it hard to
>believe that you really studied much Bible
>at a Christian university

OMG -- try walking onto any of the largest, most prominent christian universities (say Bob Jones, Heritage Christian or Oral Roberts, on and on) and espousing that the bible is not critical to the christian faith.

Holy Cow Shoe -- you would be branded a heretic. :-)

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top