Re: Bible is geocentric (but I think we covered it up)
Let me note that that text is simply dishonest and evasive.
It does not address the evidence of geocentrism, it just says that there isnít an explicit statement of geocentrism.
Which isnít surprising - the worldview of Genesis 1 doesnít include the universe as we now know it. There isnít really any point in an explicit statement. The fact that the Sun, Moon and stars are all described as being attached to a dome covering the Earth makes it quite clear.
Faith: "Scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
Evolution requires death, scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall."
I'll start with the evolution part.
I will just say that the correctness of the "death requirement for evolution" depends on which exact (constantly changing) theory of evolution actually is true.
But as to the scripture part (in your short post), then I need to get right back to the issue of the scientific views of the day.
They have been changing.
They have been incorrect.
(Both the ONCE popular scriptural readings and scientific views)
The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History By Elizabeth Kolbert
Extinction may be the first scientific idea that kids today have to grapple with. One-year-olds are given toy dinosaurs to play with, and two-year-olds understand, in a vague sort of way at least, that these small plastic creatures represent very large animals. If they're quick learners - or, alternatively, slow toilet trainers - children still in diapers can explain that there were once lots of kinds of dinosaurs and that they all died off long ago. ... All of which is to say that extinction strikes us as an obvious idea. It isn't.
Aristotle wrote a ten-book History of Animals without ever considering the possibility that animals actually had a history. Pliny's Natural History included descriptions of animals that are real and descriptions of animals that are fabulous, but no descriptions of animals that are extinct. The idea did not crop up during the Middle Ages or during the Renaissance, when the word "fossil" was used to refer to anything dug up from the ground (hence the term "fossil fuels"). In the Enlightenment, the prevailing view was that every species was a link in a great unbreakable "chain of being." As Alexander Pope put it in his Essay on Man
All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is, and God one soul.
When Carl Linnaeus introduced his system of binomial nomenclature, he made no distinction between the living and the dead because, in his view, none was required. The tenth edition of his Systema Naturae, published in 1758, lists sixty-three species of scarab beetle, thirty-four species of cone snail, and sixteen species of flat fishes. And yet in the Systema Naturae, there is really only one kinf of animal - those that exist.
The view persisted despite a sizable body of evidence to the contrary. Cabinets of curiosities in London, Paris, and Berlin were filled with traces of strange creatures that no one had ever seen - the remains of animals that would now be identified as trilobites, belemnites, and ammonites. Some of the last were so large their fossilized shells approached the size of wagon wheels. In the eighteenth century, mammoth bones increasingly made their way to Europe from Siberia. These, too, were showhorned into the system. The bones looked a lot like those of elephants. Since there clearly were no elephants in contemporary Russia, it was decided that they must have belonged to beasts that had been washed north in the great flood of Genesis.
Extinction finally emerged as a concept, probably not coincidentally, in revolutionary France. It did so largely thanks to one animal, the creature now called the American mastadon, or Mammut americanum, and one man, the naturalist Jean-Leopold-Nicolas-Frederic Cuvier, known after a dead brother simply as Georges.Cuvier is an equivocal figure in the history of science. He was far ahead of his contemporaries yet also held many of them back; he could be charming and he could be viscious; he was a visionary and, at the same time, a reactionary. By the middle of the nineteenth century, many of his ideas had been discredited. But the most recent discoveries have tended to support those very theories of his that were most thoroughly vilified, with the result that Cuvier's essentially tragic vision of earth history has come to seem prophetic.
I hope you can see that the issue of creationists Christians being wrong ( and ignorant) is unquestionable.
I hope you can see that the scientific community has been wrong (and ignorant, despite the best efforts).
The history of being WRONG is long.
Today's Creationists admit that Luther and Calvin were wrong when they powerfully asserted that the Earth does not move BECAUSE OF THE HOLY TEXT being read incorrectly.
Do you admit that EXTINCTION was an area of ignorance among those who read and interpreted the Bible during the previous 2000 years (laying aside the last 200 years plus when there was enlightenment)?
The issue of death itself might be misunderstood (there sure the heck is alot of ignorance of food issues and what exactly the Bible said about what was and was not allowed), and frankly it is not actually spelled out. "The Fall" happened, then children were born. The children then went on to begin to kill each other. (It is still debated if Abel even offered up a creature, or if there was some other sacrifice).
You yourself said that God programmed humans and creatures with the ability to eat meat. I read that earlier. Genetic code alone demands that some will resort to parasitic or carniverous behavior.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
Re: So when does Biblical Inerrancy stand up to the objections?
Oh. So Bible Inerrancy is a false and anti-Biblical doctrine held in spite of the truth. Thatís fine. Itís incredibly irrational and unChristian but if thatís the way you want to go, thatís your business.
I assumed that the title meant that the objections could be sensibly answered. I now understand my error - but you have to admit it was a bit misleading. Perhaps ďBible Inerrancy is an Invincible LieĒ would have more accurately stated your intent.
Here's the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Fall:
Here's the Bible on the "fall":
quote:Genesis 3:22-23 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
1. They became like God. 2. They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life.