These books both have historical facts
You have demonstrated exactly what I have been saying. I provide you with scholarly support of the inerrancy of Scripture in Dr. Greg Bahnsen's "The inerrancy of the autographa," and you provide ZERE evidence to refute him.You have demonstrated exactly what I have been saying - you are working from a position that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. No doubt there are any number of academics that support that position. But none of these are convincing and cannot adequately explain the glaring inconsistencies contained in the Bible. In an attempt to explain away these inconsistencies the references you cite do little more than create a climate of spin and manipulation which has no other agenda than to support their, and your, premise - that the Bible is inerrant anyway. Such circular arguments are hardly scholarly.
If you want to impress me you might begin by demonstrating how many of your references critique the story that the earth was created in six days. But I've asked you this before and you have failed to provide any adequate response other than quoting yet more references as if quoting references is the sole mechanism of your thinking.
If you want to impress me you might begin by demonstrating how many of your references critique the story that the earth was created in six days.
Depends on what you mean by 'historical facts'.
'Facts' are provably by some some process. 'History' may or may not be 'fact'. The narratives connected in the Bible are stories - they may or may not contain fact.
I understand that the bible is the word of God. Would the word of God have room for lies?
What part of the bible are you stating that may not contain facts? What verse(s) do you speak of?
Are you saying that all the verses containing Pharisees, Saducees, or Jews of Judaism in NT, didn't take place in reality? Are you saying that it is fiction?
What you illustrate here is the very reason I challenge your theology that the Bible must be taken literally.
Because you cannot adequate defend your position you end up making outlandish claims in order to shore up your own position. What you are saying is that because I don't agree with you that the Bible is inerrant that the Bible is therefore a pack of lies. This is the house of cards scenario. Then you add more cards ...
... and more ...
... and all you are doing is demonstrating is that everyone must agree with your position or they are - what - unChristian?
This is the very reason that I cannot accept your theology. The theology of inerrancy actually paints itself into a corner from which there is no escape other than to blame everyone else for the inherent problems with which the theology of inerrancy is riddled.
So my question to you is the same as to OzPen, who I note has taken himself off the discussion rather than attempt an answer. Well he might.
Question - convince me the earth way made is six days.
OzPen cannot and neither can you without resorting to the house of cards theology.
You cannot because the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. The Truth it carries is moved through time on the power of narrative and myth.
The Bible does not lie - but it speaks in a language you apparently cannot hear - and because you cannot hear that language you can only rely on the 'inerrancy' rule .
Quoted by Wayseer:
You will not be accurate without the Holy Spirit.
At the risk of repeating myself - all you are doing is demonstrating is that everyone must agree with your position or they are - what - unChristian?
You are in a position to judge others?
Exactly. So the Bible is not inerrant.
I mean no disrespect but
Let's engage in fantasy for a moment like Darwinists do and pretend that the bible wasn't written by God but by a fallible human author, particularly a fiction novelist since the secular world claims that the bible is fiction.
Would you argue and fight about words in a fiction book and try to change the words in it?How much time would you spend trying to change the ending of "Little red Riding Hood" to make the "Big Bad Wolf" into a good guy?
If a fiction author said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemned you to hell, would you get furious and slander the author?
Of course not...unless you had some kind of mental disorder. Yet that's what the secular world tries to do with the bible that they claim is fiction.So either the secular world is so deluded that they can't tell fact from fantasy, or they know deep inside that the bible is the infallible Word of God, or both.
That's called suppression. Suppression is when someone consciously tries to deny something he knows to be true in his sub-conscience. An example of that is an alcoholic who is drunk most of his life and denies that he as a drinking problem.
I've asked this same question before to atheists and their response was;
"We're not afraid of the bible, we're afraid of Christians who believe the bible.'
My response to them is; Are you afraid of "Trekkies" (Star Trek fans)?Are you afraid of the fans of Harry Potter books? And better yet, do you curse the "Big Bad Wolf", Darth Vader or any other fiction character you consider a villain? If they tried to convince you that those books are true, would you argue with them? Or would you dismiss them as lunatics?
So sorry, but trying to change the words of a book you claim is fiction betrays your real knowledge that you know the bible was written by God and is thus, true.
So God is right, as always, in Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless men who have suppressed the truth by their wickedness." That it is.
So instead of trying to prove God wrong or think you know better than God does, you would fare much better if you listened to Him because only He can determine your ultimate fate.
If you mean no disrespect wherefore the BUT?
You accused me of all sorts of things because I asked a question?
I asked you to demonstrate to me how the Bible is inerrant. All I have been given is reference to a whole range of people but my question is avoided until just recently. The answer was more than obvious at the outset - the Bible cannot claim any rule of inerrancy - it is at odds with itself and with science - the earth as we know it took many billions of year to form.
Yet there are some, including yourself apparently, who insist that the Bible is inerrant in all its detail. In doing so you are dumbing down the Bible. You then insist that everyone likewise has to be dumbed down. The truth is not obtained by insisting that the obvious is something else other than the obvious. Jesus had the same problems - convincing others that adhering to the dumbing and numbing effects of the law had nothing to do with faith nor with God.
The alternative to truth is that we live a lie - that we 'pretend' that the truth is something that it is not for the sake of the few who insist that the earth is still flat in the 21st century.
I have said nothing contradictory to accepted Christian doctrine. But I have questioned those who insist that the Bible is to be treated as the inerrant words of God. Those who deny self-evident truths might be more culpable than those who ask questions.
I never said the bible is inerrant or in error.
My question was why does it matter how old the earth is.
Brother I am not against your knowledge on the subject. I am against the way you and the other brother handle the situation. There are other ways to handle disputable matters. Where is the unity?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?