Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

This came up on RAZD's thread about age correlations, starting at Message 876 both GDR and dwise commenting that creationists wrongly insist that the Bible is inerrant. It's off topic there so if anyone has more to say on the subject it does need a new thread, although I don't think there's much to discuss about it, just inerrantists saying we hold to it no matter what and anti-inerrantists saying science won't let us.In any case here's my answer to dwise and I'll post my answer to GDR in the next post. Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think. There was no conflict with science until the pseudosciences of the Theory of Evolution and the Old Earth came along. (Galileo was opposed by the Roman Church's adherence to Aristotle, not the Bible). There is nothing false about our theology, the problem is that these are pseudosciences and they create the conflict.Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition:It doesn't get into issues of creation science beyond making the general statement that the Bible is correct wherever it touches on such matters. This is stated in Article XII: In other words it denies the criteria used by science to argue against the Bible. Where issues remain unresolved it exhorts believers to affirm the truth of the Bible on the expectation that eventually it will be shown that the supposed contradiction is an illusion.This is our foundation. Any of our particular attempts to answer scientific claims may be wrong, but the Bible remains the foundation and the truth we are always striving for.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Biblical inerrancy was intended then and now. I'm including a link below to a document on the subject. Not so. Creation is simply affirming what all Christians affirm, that God is right and any claims to the contrary don't matter. Science is wonderful and does not contradict the Bible. Evolution is false science. God created creatures to "evolve" -- vary in wonderful ways -- only within their Kind, but not from one Kind or Species to another. This is very clear from the Bible for those who know the Bible is God's inerrant word. I haven't read all of creation's posts but I doubt he is saying anything at all against science as such since Christians strongly affirm true science, True science is a gift from God and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada.And here's the link to this document I also just posted to dwise: Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition .Besides noting what I posted to dwise, I'd particularly like you to be aware of the section titled Authority: Christ and the Bible because you are always asserting that Christ is the Word but the Bible is not: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I gather there was some bad biblical theology that was used against Galileo also, but even Wikipedia lays the problem on the Church's adherence to Aristotle and Ptolemy: Some passages in the Bible are mentioned as contradicted by Galileo's theory also, but in the end this view changed, at least in Protestant circles I believe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Augustine was all over the place on some subjects. He's great on salvation by faith but not so great on science. Not according to the statement I linked which clearly says the Bible is to be held as inerrant on matters of history and science as well as spiritual matters. I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses, which includes some statements that have implications for today's sciences. I think it's pretty clear that there is no contradiction with all the sciences which as you say have made our lives better in many ways, and which we should thank God for; which leaves the Old Earth and Evolutionary Theory as the only sources of conflict, and again, sources of nothing in the slightest bit useful to us. These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves. It all remains theory or conjecture as a result. Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture. Not according to my theology. He reveals their spiritual meaning whereas the Jews understood them to refer only to outward behavior. So Jesus said the commandment against adultery isn't just against the outward act, but is also violated by inner thoughts of lust; that the commandment against murder isn't just against the outward act but is also violated by inner thoughts of hatred toward anybody. In other words He showed their true breadth, he didn't contradict them. No He doesn't. He says Moses was lenient about divorce, allowing it because of the hardness of the men's hearts, though in reality God hates divorce and opposes it in all cases. In this case as in the above two cases discussed, Jesus could be said to show that the true commandment is stricter than the Jews take it to be. Except that it is Scripture itself which ascribes those events as God's acts of justice. Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I. Well, read what I quoted. It says that there is a reciprocity between the written Word and Christ as the Word of God, that ultimately they are one, validating each other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then the argument would have to be that they were wrong. But I keep encountering descriptions of Romanism's adherence to Aristotle in particular, even a former priest who says that's all he was taught, just Aristotle, not the Bible. However, there do seem to be some confusions involved in all this.

Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all. Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning. As I've said, it's foundational, everything else follows from it. God inspired it, therefore it is inerrant.The usual resolution of the incident you mention has to do with "hearing" meaning "understanding" and when it says they saw no man nothing contradicts that since in the other cases all they saw was light, not a person.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Biblical Inerrancy is standard accepted dogma, and this statement was signed by some of the biggest names in evangelicalism. Out of this list of fourteen, I'm familiar with all but five, which I've put in parentheses. For an average believer like me to be familiar with that many names on the list means those are really big names, and if they signed this document that makes it pretty authoritative.If they don't see contradictions where you see them, guess what, they're right, you're wrong.All the supposed contradictions are trivial, anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never been very interested in trying to resolve all the supposed discrepancies. Most of them are usually resolved easily enough as just one writer's particular focus differing from the others' and those that can't be so easily resolved are unimportant anyway. What makes the Bible most importantly inerrant is the main themes, the continuity from one book to another down the centuries that build up the overall revelation. I have no respect whatever for those who object to the traditional order and interpretation, so I just ignore all your stuff along those lines.The point of presenting this document on biblical inerrancy was to answer GDR and dwise who seem to treat it as something creationists made up. It's not, it's established doctrine and creation science has to adhere to it same as other Christian enterprises have to. Picking it apart doesn't change any of that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Cross sections give a lot of amazing information that couldn't be acquired in the field anyway.

First, I don't know if those signers find the Young Earth in scripture, it isn't mentioned in the document. I think it's pretty inescapable myself but I don't want to impose that on them. My own view is that it is there and that means the Old Earth is simply wrong. The document merely says that wherever there is conflict with science the Bible is right and will eventually be shown to be right.I don't see geocentrism in the Bible though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the document that says inerrancy goes back to the beginning, I don't know who they are referring to but Augustine IS known for his many different opinions even on the same subject throughout his lengthy career and voluminous writings. You did not show Jesus denying an inerrant Bible. He quoted from every book in the OT as authoritative. He wrote them, why wouldn't He know them from memory? I learned what I believe from them among other teachers, they were authoritative before I came along. He says it was Moses who SOFTENED the commandment because of their hard hearts, he gave no commandment himself. There is no way to put the Bible ahead of Jesus since as God He wrote it and all its words are His words. Nobody was stoned for a minor offense, you just have no appreciation of the seriousness of the crime so punished. You also have no appreciation of the magnitude of the sins that had accumulated for centuries before God judged a people by wiping them out. Absolutely it is. Doing any work on the Sabbath would have been an extreme violation of an extremely important commandment, which any "poor schmuck" would have known well, so that to violate it was a direct intentional affront to God and an example for rebellion to the rest of the people. You read out of context. The Midianite women had seduced Israelite men in the past into fornication and idolatry and to include them in the nation would have exposed the Israelites to further sins. Here's one commentary on the incident:

quote:

---

b. Keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately: Therefore, all the women who had known a man intimately were to be killed. But ones who had not been connected with the immorality and idolatry of the Midianites could be kept alive.

​

c. Every male among the little ones: These also had to be killed. This was harsh, but done with the understanding that in that ancient culture, the boys would have grown into men with the solemn responsibility to avenge their father's death and to perpetuate Midianite culture - which in itself was anti-God.
  —Guzik

---

I've learned from the best over the years. don't think I'll even answer such a perverse statement. I think I'll leave it to the LORD to straighten you out eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No doubt, but it's different information.

No idea who James McGrath is and your quote is sheer gobbledygook.

You are blathering on about stuff you don't bother to demonstrate so I have no reason to take any of it seriously.