Is Bible inerrant

zTroll:
>Like Einstein could explain his theories to his infant
>children so that they would truly understand at
>his level...

Like "God" is anything like Einstein.

LOL -- what a putz the zTroll is, comparing God's teaching capabilities to a simple human being.

>Quite seriously, you really do have a God
>complex...in so many ways.

Quite seriously, you really are a total idiot ... in so many ways.

JB
 
Quote from rcanfiel:

...
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.

I have sync on ignore, but couldn't help notice some of his words in your post. he is continuing to cut and paste "examples" as if he thought of them himself. Most of the above examples are standard fare in websites about "how to bash the bible for people who haven't a clue how to do it on their own". He didn't think up most of this stuff himself. The man continues to lie...

Funny, a man who claims to have gone to an evangelical university mostly spent his time looking for errors? That is a pretty desparate way to spend your life. That is like a mathematician who goes to Princeton, but doesn't believe in calculus, plane geometry, or trigonometry. from what I saw of him, it is mostly windbag stuff...
More...


Actually, what I was concerned about was the fact that he didn't do his research. For example, I went for a couple of semesters to a small, charistmatic Bible College in the middle of nowhere. And, even in this school, they discussed inerrancy and infalliblity.

I'm not sure why, but I find it disturbing that you would claim to be a skeptic and a Christian and not really understand either position. Again, not sure what bothers me about it...
 
Quote from I am...:

In what way are you a follower of Jesus?

Jesus
More...

Johnny,

If you could take off your Rev Moon mask for just a minute and be JohnnyK again, I wouldn't mind dialoguing. But what happens now is I respond with one or two sentences and you write back forty three sentences of gnostic, New Age mantras.

If I wanted that, I could just go to Barnes and Noble and buy about any of a hundred books there...
 
Quote from Turok:

Many will tell you that the bible *does* claim to be inerrant and will back it up with multiple passages, such as:

2nd Peter 1: 20, 21
2nd Timothy 3:16, 17

Others will say it makes no such claim.

With devout and sincere christians on both sides of the issue (though most overwhelmingly crowd onto the inerrant side) I find it amusing that the 2Pet 1:20 verse should say there is no "private interpretation" allowed.

Interestingly, private interpretation is rampant, with all sides claiming that theirs is not strictly "private", but blessed by their personal relationship with "the Lord". Of course, this can't be true since they come to a myriad of conclusions (interpretations).

JB
More...

Well I suppose there's going to be private interpretation whether it's allowed or not. When you think of it, how can there not be private interpretation when everybody sees everything from his own unique perspective? There are as many versions of God as there are people - more actually because people's moods change and their attitudes to God or their perceptions of God can change. If you were to walk into any church or synagogue or whatever if you dug deep enough and got past the dogma you'd find as many Gods in that place of worship as there were people.

Same goes for atheist and agnostics since they must have some concept of God they're against or can't decide about.
 
Quote from luckyluciano:

The Bible is simply man's stoneage attempt to explain the Unexplainable just like all other religeous writings.
More...

Actually, Jesus' and Paul's teaching were both quite involved and quite developed. They certainly cannot imo be rejected as "stoneage attempts". Of course, I recognize that there are many reasons that someone would reject Christianity. But I cannot see how it would be because it was "stoneage"...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Actually, Jesus' and Paul's teaching were both quite involved and quite developed. They certainly cannot imo be rejected as "stoneage attempts". Of course, I recognize that there are many reasons that someone would reject Christianity. But I cannot see how it would be because it was "stoneage"...
More...

Jesus and Paul are of the New Testament; I don't know what their connection might be to Genesis, other that they appear in the same collection of books (Bible).

Before the One God concept came along most religions were based on Fate as the determining factor in our lives. Christianity places the responsibility for the self squarely on the self; this represented a huge advance in the importance of free will and the status of the common individual.

If anything Judeo-Christian theology provided us with a means to advance out of religious primitivism.

The Greeks were odd. They were so advanced politically, scientifically, and philosophically but had what must be about the silliest religious concepts ever construed.
 
Quote from Hansel H:

The Greeks were odd. They were so advanced politically, scientifically, and philosophically but had what must be about the silliest religious concepts ever construed.
More...

Which Greeks? The ones in Toronto and Melbourne?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top