No where in the OP did I claim to have an inspired interpretation of scripture. In fact, I did not mention any interpetation of mine at all. I made two points. First, that not even the Bible claims that the Bible is inerrant. Second, Nobody's interpretation of scripture is inerrant (mine included). Do you agree or disagree with these two points?
First textual critism does point out at worst to some tampering, what it likes to call spurious. It also points to some 'lost in translation' and spelling blunders. It cannot point out the absense of inerrancy by an inspired revelation coming from God. Putting two and two together so to speak, like what happenned to Peter. "
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Mt 16:17)
Basically any errors do not make the scriptures null and void as being something that has not come from God as His revealed word. That despite certain obvious blunders made in translation and spelling plus spurioucity, the inerrancy happens not with what is written, but with what is
being heard ->
Interpretation.
Secondly... I'll get around to it.
I do agree the questions you asked are at the crux of the issue but it tends to lump all creationists in one lump sum. I too would ask such things as,
'show me in the Bible where it says the earth is 6,000 years old?' But it's the conclusion your statement reaches and wishes to convince people as being "the truth" too, which is where the
came from.
In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.
And that is why creationism is not based on The Inerrant Word of God
Where do ideas of
this or that which reach conclusions come from? It could be asked what inspires a person to write their post? People should ask, why should they believe you or me for that matter? How does a person know if someone is speaking the universal truth or just something out of their own bias or limited observation?
However if one where to
assume that the Bible was divinely inspired, what does the word explain?
"
Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little." For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, To whom He said, "This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; Yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught."
It does claim that right and wrong ideas are being made about it contents, would explaining creation be somehow immune to the above process? Certainly not. Surprisingly the above also suggests the right ideas are being spoken but not being heard, somehow the wrong ones are being claimed. Indeed where does the Bible claim the earth is 6,000 years old?
So when one assumes the Bible is divinely inspired for today's population, where one of its internally inspired writers wrote, "
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you..." (2 Pe 2:1) Are people to assume that
only false teachers are left presently to interpret the scriptures and creationism for them? Or have those that have been given the inspiration, the revelation of its truth, are they around to interpret it today?
"
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Re 14:12)
That is of course if one were to assume that the inspired word of God is the truth and its inerrancy is still available to be communicated.
Yes there are people communicating and interpreting the inspired word in truth. Problem is with soooooo many different claims, who can a person believe?