Do most creationist agree with this?

[juvenissun]

Juvenissum you pretty much avoided all my questions. I asked you question about your faith, but you avoided responding? Why?



And I addressed you here. As see it, you do see the inconstancy, but have faith that it's not an inconstancy, and I made this point in my last post to you. But I would appreciate it Juvenism if you would go back and answer those questions pertaining to your faith and what would lessen or make you lose it.

Just like when I "explain" things to student, they don't like it and say I did not answer their questions. Then when I gave them simple straightforward answers, they became happy. I guess you want a short one too.

I do not have the answer to your question. But I believe many people have seen this question and either it is not a question any more or it is an unsolved question. But I am sure it is NOT a confirmed error in the Bible.

Since I think it that way, I hold 100% my faith to the inerrancy of the Bible. As to my faith is bigger or smaller than yours, since I do not doubt the accuracy of Bible and perhaps you do, so what you say?

Happy now?

 

[theIdi0t]

Since I think it that way, I hold 100% my faith to the inerrancy of the Bible. As to my faith is bigger or smaller than yours, since I do not doubt the accuracy of Bible and perhaps you do, so what you say?

Happy now?

No, I'm not.

Sure, you answered one of my questions here as well as in the other post. But you didn't answer any of the question relating to the effects on your faith.

To sum up the questions, it's a simple as this, If the Bible is not inerrant would your faith in God be lost (or diminish).

Paul was open and revealing about the resurrection, he claimed that if there was no resurrection his faith would be meaningless, and he would have no hope. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Would you say your faith in inerrancy can be summed up in a similar way: "If the bible is not inerrant I would lose my faith, because my faith would become useless."

 

[juvenissun]

No, I'm not.

Sure, you answered one of my questions here as well as in the other post. But you didn't answer any of the question relating to the effects on your faith.

To sum up the questions, it's a simple as this, If the Bible is not inerrant would your faith in God be lost (or diminish).

Paul was open and revealing about the resurrection, he claimed that if there was no resurrection his faith would be meaningless, and he would have no hope. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Would you say your faith in inerrancy can be summed up in a similar way: "If the bible is not inerrant I would lose my faith, because my faith would become useless."

I see.

YES.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Depends on on whether one wants to see the Koine greek, symbol greek or transliterated greek.
Let me see if all 3 will show up here and Wordpad has it where I can use all 3.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

It's a CF thing. Depends on your browser settings, I assume. Can you see Greek font in this?

ο Ηλιος

It must be browser settings. I'm on a different computer right now and both in the thread and here it shows as being transliterated, but Melethiel's post and in here is both Greek. I thought it was all transliterated and seemed really strange to transliterated omega as 'w' and the movable nu as a capital 'V'. But I guess that's not your fault.

 

[Assyrian]

It's not actually a transliteration. The Symbol font uses our ordinary keystrokes for the Greek ones, and uses some of the leftover letter to represent Greek letters that aren't in our aphabet,
w for omega w
h for eta h,
V for final sigma V.
The only difference is in the shape Symbol uses to show the letters, it uses Greek alphabet shapes. If you take text in Symbol but use an ordinary English font like Time New Roman, you will get an almost readable version of the Greek in our alphabet with some glitches like the letters mentioned above.

 

[Scotishfury09]

It's not actually a transliteration. The Symbol font uses our ordinary keystrokes for the Greek ones, and uses some of the leftover letter to represent Greek letters that aren't in our aphabet,
w for omega w
h for eta h,
V for final sigma V.
The only difference is in the shape Symbol uses to show the letters, it uses Greek alphabet shapes. If you take text in Symbol but use an ordinary English font like Time New Roman, you will get an almost readable version of the Greek in our alphabet with some glitches like the letters mentioned above.

That makes much more sense. Thank you.

 

[busterdog]

Are you claiming that person A's faith in God is smaller than person B's?

(Can't quantify faith on this example. What of tithes or giving to the poor? No easy answer.)

Let's reverse the question. If 1% of the later books of the Bible is confused, how do you have any confidence in your position about creation? That is not a statistically significant deviation.

The inerrant people should not be afraid to affirm inerrancy but yet say, I don't know how to make it make sense. I said that about "This is my body." It makes no sense for a believer of "faith" to assume that they can reconcile it all.

Frankly, most of these canards have been disposed of with an enormous degree of reliability. There are clearly some very small translational issues in the masoretic and greek copies of the NT. So, there is error. Really small stuff. Like your example, if that is error.

That being said, your question is a hard one and the answer does not leap off the page.

Here is Henry Morris:

"By comparison with the account in Matthew 27:3-8, it is evident that Judas "purchased" this field only indirectly. He threw down his blood money (the thirty pieces of silver paid him for betraying Jesus) in front of the chief priests, who used it to buy the field called Aceldama (Acts 1:19), or "the field of blood" (Matthew 27:8). He then hanged himself, apparently in the same field, but bungled the attempt, actually dying as described in this verse." ("The Defenders Study Bible", pg 1177)

This is not completely satisfying, but not completely impossible either. I assume that you would be honest enough to say that you could pound this square peg into the round hole if necessary. They CAN be reconciled, it just isn't completely beyond suspicion and really isn't a satisfying "surface text."

Remember the brazen sea in Kings. The given diameter is not the circumference divided by pi. However, to find error, we must make an assumption about whether the measurements were both AOD as opposed to IOD (ie, the interior or exterior). A simple adjustment for thickness resolve the matter. What this implies is a question to the reader: "Are you going to believe me? Are you going to mess with me? Because you are probably making an improper assumption to make your case if you do.

So, lets assume you found error, are you going to draw a sweeping conclusion on the basis of that conclusion? The only thing you would have going for you is the assumption that an inerrant believer cannot tolerate the smallest discrepancy in a jot or tittle. That assumption is not warranted.

 

[juvenissun]

So, lets assume you found error, are you going to draw a sweeping conclusion on the basis of that conclusion? The only thing you would have going for you is the assumption that an inerrant believer cannot tolerate the smallest discrepancy in a jot or tittle. That assumption is not warranted.

And, we can EASILY believe that this Book has be thoroughly scrutinized by many many smart people back and forth for thousands of years. If no concrete error had been found, then it does NOT EXIST.

 

[busterdog]

And, we can EASILY believe that this Book has be thoroughly scrutinized by many many smart people back and forth for thousands of years. If no concrete error had been found, then it does NOT EXIST.

That's right. There is so much proven reliability, I am content to wait for the answer on the judas thing, even if it seems wrong now.

 

[gluadys]

Let's reverse the question. If 1% of the later books of the Bible is confused, how do you have any confidence in your position about creation?

I don't see the basis of the question. The non-literal interpretation of the creation texts does not rest on finding any error in them.

Finding error in them casts doubt on the inerrantist position. Not finding error still leaves a non-literal interpretation intact.

Frankly, most of these canards have been disposed of with an enormous degree of reliability.

That is true. I have no real problem with most reconciliations of the discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions commonly raised. But I do make a few points:

1. The existence of a reconciliation confirms the existence of a discrepancy. If there were no discrepancy there would be no need of a reconciliation.

2. The reconciliations are by-and-large ad hoc "just-so" stories; tales of what might be. They are not exegesis and should not be treated as such.

3. Such reconciliations feed into the idea that an inerrant scripture ought not to show discrepancy. As such they provide grist for the mill of skepticism, especially when they are not wholly convincing.

There are clearly some very small translational issues in the masoretic and greek copies of the NT. So, there is error. Really small stuff. Like your example, if that is error.

I agree. Really small stuff and for the most part we should not sweat over it. But a doctrine of inerrancy turns it into an occasion of skepticism.

This is not completely satisfying, but not completely impossible either. I assume that you would be honest enough to say that you could pound this square peg into the round hole if necessary. They CAN be reconciled, it just isn't completely beyond suspicion and really isn't a satisfying "surface text."

So why invest energy in creating a reconciliation in the first place?

So, lets assume you found error, are you going to draw a sweeping conclusion on the basis of that conclusion?

As believers, no. But skeptics do. And I suggest it is a doctrine of inerrancy that invites this. You may say they don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy. And you are probably right. And I will agree that a skeptic's misuse of the concept of inerrancy is not valid grounds for rejecting the doctrine either.

The only thing you would have going for you is the assumption that an inerrant believer cannot tolerate the smallest discrepancy in a jot or tittle. That assumption is not warranted.

I can accept that. But it still leaves me wondering why a doctrine of inerrancy is important. And why, if small discrepancies are tolerable, energy is invested in creating dubious reconciliations.

Not to mention the problems of exegesis they create with which this thread began.

 

[busterdog]

I don't see the basis of the question. The non-literal interpretation of the creation texts does not rest on finding any error in them.

Finding error in them casts doubt on the inerrantist position. Not finding error still leaves a non-literal interpretation intact.

The question assumes that we agree that there is apparent error. Then what? I point to the enormous amount of narrative without error. Which is more significant?

If we look at it scientifically, we are talking about statistical significance. The 1% demonstrated error could well be our lack of understanding.

I think it is a mistake for inerrant believers to assume that the have all the answers, which they don't. That is what would be required to establish 100% reliability.

That is true. I have no real problem with most reconciliations of the discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions commonly raised. But I do make a few points:

1. The existence of a reconciliation confirms the existence of a discrepancy. If there were no discrepancy there would be no need of a reconciliation.

Yes. If YECs are going to use human logic, they must accept its inherent limitations.

2. The reconciliations are by-and-large ad hoc "just-so" stories; tales of what might be. They are not exegesis and should not be treated as such.

Why not? They may not be thoroughly convincing. But what is your aim? If you aim is plausibility only, then you succeed. Morris plausible, but not convincing to me. When faced with plausibility, I am content to wait for the answer faithfully.

Thus, my attack on evolutionary logic is based upon plausible alternatives. It is much safer ground.

3. Such reconciliations feed into the idea that an inerrant scripture ought not to show discrepancy. As such they provide grist for the mill of skepticism, especially when they are not wholly convincing.

Indeed they do.

But try to imagine a text with 66 books written over 2500 years. Even if it is free of error, is it possible to imagine that at one time or another there would not be apparent error?

That is a soft position, for sure. There must always be more than logic to support faith.

I agree. Really small stuff and for the most part we should not sweat over it. But a doctrine of inerrancy turns it into an occasion of skepticism.

Perhaps when the fideists admit the problem, they have a better opportunity to dialogue.

So why invest energy in creating a reconciliation in the first place?

It does allow us to make the case that many of the supposed critics have been wrong or at least not convincing a good deal of the time. Much of it is response. But, also just because we are curious and its fun to try to work it out. Sometimes its the flesh, but sometimes there is good fruit.

I can accept that. But it still leaves me wondering why a doctrine of inerrancy is important. And why, if small discrepancies are tolerable, energy is invested in creating dubious reconciliations.

I invest little energy in the work of reconciliation, except whether others are convinced that the rest of the book can be regarded as nonliteral., and excep when it just strikes my fancy.

have to finish later.

 

[theIdi0t]

(Can't quantify faith on this example. What of tithes or giving to the poor? No easy answer.)

Uhm...I thought it would be assumed the question is with all other things held constant, particulary when it was Juvenism who claimed that a person who accepts the bible contains errors has a smaller faith than one who doesn't. I understood he meant with all other things held constant, but I guess that point alluded you?

This is not completely satisfying, but not completely impossible either. I assume that you would be honest enough to say that you could pound this square peg into the round hole if necessary. They CAN be reconciled, it just isn't completely beyond suspicion and really isn't a satisfying "surface text."

Sure it can be reconciled, I even provided a reconciliation in my OP. Juvenism later comments reveal why some believers will accept that the specious reconciliation that I proposed is correct, over accepting that there is a discrepancy in the two accounts.

The thing he values most in life, his faith, is built on it. And without inerrancy his house falls apart. Juvenism agreed that his view can be summed up as: "If the bible is not inerrant I would lose my faith, because my faith would become useless."

Is this true for you as well Busterdog?

If so, do you think this should be the position expounded on by Churches, taught to younger generations, that if you accept that the bible is not inerrant your faith is meaningless, because all of it is useless. DO you believe that they all should be taught to build there faith on inerrancy as Juvenism faith is, that if innerrancy fails their house should fall apart?

And my final question to you is.

Which person (with all other things held constant) reveals a stronger faith.

The persons who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you remains, even if the Bible is not inerrant.

Or the person who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you will not remain, it will be lost if the Bible is not inerrant."

So, lets assume you found error, are you going to draw a sweeping conclusion on the basis of that conclusion? The only thing you would have going for you is the assumption that an inerrant believer cannot tolerate the smallest discrepancy in a jot or tittle. That assumption is not warranted.

I didn't draw any "sweeping" conclusions. In fact Juvenism confirmed them.

 

[busterdog]

Uhm...I thought it would be assumed the question is with all other things held constant, particulary when it was Juvenism who claimed that a person who accepts the bible contains errors has a smaller faith than one who doesn't. I understood he meant with all other things held constant, but I guess that point alluded you?

Yes. ALl other things being equal. Less faith. But, the very idea of all other things being equal makes the question close to meaningless in an ultimate sense.

Sure it can be reconciled, I even provided a reconciliation in my OP. Juvenism later comments reveal why some believers will accept that the specious reconciliation that I proposed is correct, over accepting that there is a discrepancy in the two accounts.

"Specious" is a bold word.

The thing he values most in life, his faith, is built on it. And without inerrancy his house falls apart. Juvenism agreed that his view can be summed up as: "If the bible is not inerrant I would lose my faith, because my faith would become useless."



Is this true for you as well Busterdog?

Well, if there were no God, I guess I would lose my faith as well. Can I conceive of the possibility? I don't know that I can. How equivalent is this to loss of faith in the Word? It is so important to my walk, I don't know what I would do without it. Could I survive and find faith after a nuclear attack on New York? I suppose I might, but I don't know how.

The most essential belief would be the resurrection and coming of Christ in the flesh. This other stuff is less essential, but it is hard to imagine how it is not all part of the whole.

If so, do you think this should be the position expounded on by Churches, taught to younger generations, that if you accept that the bible is not inerrant your faith is meaningless, because all of it is useless. DO you believe that they all should be taught to build there faith on inerrancy as Juvenism faith is, that if innerrancy fails their house should fall apart?

I am not all that up on the history. I say yes, teach inerrancy. But, teach the essential confession is distinct. It is the person of Christ and his resurrection. I would teach that the former flows from the latter. But I would teach that the two are distinct.

And my final question to you is.

Which person (with all other things held constant) reveals a stronger faith.

The persons who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you remains, even if the Bible is not inerrant.

Or the person who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you will not remain, it will be lost if the Bible is not inerrant."

One would have to say the former, since it assumes the essential inerrant statement, that "I believe what you testify about yourself -- the resurrection and that you came in the flesh."

To be equal, what else must follow?

Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

That being said, we inexorably travel down the inerrant road, if we believe in the inerrant position. So, either way that your question is posed, the inerrant believer must assume that that inerrant position is valid. But, it puts the simplest Rom. 10 confession first.

As I see it, no matter which you confession you start with, the voice of God remains and calls you to an inerrant belief in the Word (as originally spoken, and apart from translational issues, which demonstrably, though perhaps only slightly corrupt.). So, I will concede your point on the question you pose, but I cannot separate it from an inerrant Word.

I didn't draw any "sweeping" conclusions. In fact Juvenism confirmed them.

OK. I confused you with the prevailing liberal academic view.

 

[shernren]

That being said, we inexorably travel down the inerrant road, if we believe in the inerrant position. So, either way that your question is posed, the inerrant believer must assume that that inerrant position is valid. But, it puts the simplest Rom. 10 confession first.

As I see it, no matter which you confession you start with, the voice of God remains and calls you to an inerrant belief in the Word (as originally spoken, and apart from translational issues, which demonstrably, though perhaps only slightly corrupt.). So, I will concede your point on the question you pose, but I cannot separate it from an inerrant Word.

But inerrant by what standard? Inerrancy only makes sense if one is comparing the work adjudged inerrant to some kind of standard that distinguishes truth from error.

After all, it would hardly be necessary nor edifying to say that the Bible is inerrant relative to itself. Of course it is, and that is not what those who teach inerrancy mean when they say that the Bible is inerrant.

But it is telling that in terms of scientific endeavours, the most concerted efforts of inerrantists come from proving that passages in the Bible alleged to be geocentric are not in fact geocentric. (Watch my wording: I am in fact remaining neutral about whether those passages are in fact geocentric.) Why should that be such a thorn in the side of the inerrantists? After all, inerrantists of an earlier era looked at the Bible and decided that heliocentrism must be scientifically untenable. Can it be that hard for inerrantists today to simply throw down their textbooks and do the same? After all, some have done that very thing.

The fact of the matter is that inerrancy as a doctrine is really inerrancy relative to physical reality: that is to say, the Bible is inerrant insofar as it speaks to scientifically apprehensible features of the universe. But where, indeed, does one obtain one's view of physical reality from? Certainly not the Bible; firstly because that would bring us back to the meaningless truism we rejected earlier, and secondly because science has always proceeded, with sound theological assurances, to ascertain properties of the universe through direct examination of that universe. Isn't it telling?

To a geocentrist inerrantist,
heliocentrism is scientifically untenable,
a geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is accurate,
and a heliocentrist interpretation of the Bible is irresponsible.

To a heliocentrist inerrantist,
geocentrism is scientifically untenable,
a heliocentrist interpretation of the Bible is possible and plausible,
and a geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is irresponsible.

Doesn't that strike you as being suspicious in the slightest? Why is it that the inerrantists who are priorly convinced (brainwashed, if I may provocatively overgeneralize) that heliocentrism is scientifically correct are precisely the same inerrantists who fight fiercely to legitimize a heliocentric view of the Bible? If Crusaders insisted that the Bible allowed their holy war, slave owners insisted that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and white supremacists insisted that the Bible marks blacks as accursed, they would be accused of reading their agendas into the Bible. If a heliocentrist insists that the Bible can be read heliocentrically, shouldn't they be viewed with at least a little suspicion? Who's giving them their marching orders, and what sets their agenda towards the Bible?

 

[juvenissun]

And my final question to you is.

Which person (with all other things held constant) reveals a stronger faith.

The persons who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you remains, even if the Bible is not inerrant.

Or the person who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you will not remain, it will be lost if the Bible is not inerrant."

I think you are trying to deceive by hiding a critical premise:

"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,”

 

[Mallon]

I think you are trying to deceive by hiding a critical premise:

"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,”

... which begs the question: What does it mean to be inspired by God?

 

[juvenissun]

To a geocentrist inerrantist,
heliocentrism is scientifically untenable,
a geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is accurate,
and a heliocentrist interpretation of the Bible is irresponsible.

1000 years ago, this is absolutely true.

To a heliocentrist inerrantist,
geocentrism is scientifically untenable,
a heliocentrist interpretation of the Bible is possible and plausible,
and a geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is irresponsible.

Today, this absolutely true.

So, could we say that both are true? Why not? Why would time make the difference? What did the time do?

 

[juvenissun]

... which begs the question: What does it mean to be inspired by God?

See, you can not even be sure on the very basic concept. Then how could you tell this one is true and that one is false?

I think theIdiot could make the choice on his wisdom. I can not.

 

[theIdi0t]

I think you are trying to deceive by hiding a critical premise:

"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,”

When did inspiration turn to dictation?

I believe whole heartedly that all scripture is inspired by God, even if Paul didn't say it.

Like a poem is inspired by love.

I can turn from the OT to NT to feel this inspiration down to the very core of me, but not inerrancy nor dictation.

When I read Psalm 137:

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat mourning and weeping when we remembered Zion.

On the poplars of that land we hung up our harps.

There our captors asked us for the words of a song; Our tormentors, for a joyful song: "Sing for us a song of Zion!"

But how could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land?

If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither."

I can hear the writer of the Psalm embodying the voice of the exiled, of the oppressed. The writer is not lost here, neither is the God who will not forget Jerusalem either. The human quality of Psalms 137 is not lost, particularly when it reaches its highest pitch in the last verse: "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."

The Gospels do not lose their human quality, in fact in having four accounts they reveal them. When the four writers write of Christ's final words on the cross, you may believe that God revealed what he said exactly to them, and all for them were told something different, to be combined by Juvenism, and Busterdog 2000 years later. I don't believe this. But I find what the writers wrote in their creative imagination of what their Lord on the cross would say, to be beautiful.

I remember watching a documentary on the Tiananmen Square Tank Man, and I watched as I heard individuals who lived during the time imagine what the man said to that tank, and I found what the words produced in the creativity of what that event embodied for them, to be beautiful.

And if there were a bunch of scientist trying to zoom in and follow the movements of the tank man's mouth to derive at what he most likely said, I would turn the TV off.

Your inerrancy holds no value for me, it posses no beauty, nor does it salt my faith. I might even argue, that it is the imperfections that make it all together beautiful and meaningful to me.

 

[gluadys]

A highly reppable post, but alas!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to theIdi0t again.