Inerrancy of the Bible 2

If the deceleration was slow enough we probably wouldn't notice but when it's done quickly? Those of us old enough to remember when cars didn't come equipped with seat belts probably have at least one experience when someone jammed on the brakes at high speed. Unless you were prepared by bracing yourself you went flying and in the event of impact accidents people could be thrown through windshields hence seatbelts and airbags.But I know this will be no problem for Tom he will simple extend the miracle to not only slowing the earth but to slowing everything down and why not? It's easy to tell stories. We could even have a thread for those of us who believe all the stories about dragons and figure out scientifically how their digestion enabled them to exhales flames! We wouldn't even need to bother to study boring chemistry as we are telling stories we could conjecture they somehow purify sodium from salt and then regurgitate it and when it hits the oxygen it ignites and their large lungs then blow the burning gases away from them. Isn't science just like another religion? Just stories we want to believe on authority?
lfen

Phat,Some people find Star Trek believable, and some people find the Bible stories believable. Sounds like you are admitting that the Bible is fiction written by humans just like Star Trek.And then there are people like me who find neither Star Trek nor the Bible stories of miracles believable.lfen

Jar,Having found the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, perhaps Monty Python will be able to unearth the Pharoh's Phlashlight? The might laser that can cast shadows even in full sunlight!chanting "tedium tedium" ***WHACK***lfen

I think he is outa here. Like Tom he saw that our best arguments were like water on a duck's back, the KJV remains inerrant and the process of evidence is tedious.lfen

Would you be specific here please. I will easily guess you are including communism and the Russian revolution, Stalinism, and Maoism in this. But I don't know what else you might be including or excluding.lfen

incognito,There have been so many Flood threads I don't know if further discussion will be fitting here. I take it you would defend a world wide flood as factual? I will further guess you will point to some areas of dispute in current geological theories to suggest that there might be room for some alternate account for strata?At any rate I would be interested in what approach you would take to support a worldwide flood as I find that one of the least supportable in terms of geology, history, archeology, or biology.lfen

Brian,He could be an example of the extremely rare truly intelligent troll. Whether put on or genuine his obliviousness was a wondrous thing to behold and I enjoyed the tone of his responses immensely. If he is genuine it appears he is greatly enjoying life, and if he was trolling he still seems to be genuinely enjoying life. I hope he finds time to visit again.lfen

Incognito,It appears we are compiling a list of claimed errors. Are you wanting to tackle them all at once or one at a time? I'd like to suggest that we get a list and then you select one error at a time so we can all focus in detail.As to the inerrancy of the KJV I'm not sure if we are confining this to errors unique to it i.e. corrected or not found in other translations, or bibical errors in general. If the later the Flood would be legitimate but it has been discussed along with the Exodus at great length in multiple threads here. Well science differs from religion in that beliefs are based on evidence and evidence changes as does understanding. When a theory is disproved that is a confirmation of science not a rebuttal of it. What is being contrasted is a process of knowledge vs. an individual having some private experience that they proclaim as a revealed truth.Now my sister didn't like the uncertainty of science. She wanted to live her life believing something once and for all and being done with it. I understand that and yet remain uncomfortable with it. It was her choice and she found what she wanted in the Lutheran Church. Her attitude was if the Bible had errors she didn't want to know about it.As to the Pleiades and Orion this sounds like poetic expression not astronomical science at all. I personally think that much of the Bible contains material that is literary poetical imagery and not scientific fact or historical data. There are people who appear to regard almost everything written as having only literal meaning.My opinion is that those who wish the Bible to be regarded as literally true do the greatest damage to it because they are projecting backwards in time modern scientific processes and requiring the authors of the books of the Bible to do something that they couldn't do nor had any intention of doing. The exodus and the flood are very dramatic stories with rich meanings. When treated as historical facts they are then moved from the realm of expression to the realm of data and verification and then... we have the kind of carnival atmosphere that Ron Wyden turned into an enterprise, etc.lfen

Phat,I'm not sure what distinction you are making with "internal wisdom" but I want to point out that it is YOU who are believing that your "internal wisdom is incapable of perfection" this puts you in the same circular reasoning of someone's sig that says in effect if you believe there are no absolutes you can't be absolutely sure of that.My point is that when we trust an authority whether it be religious or secular, ourselves or another we are still evaluating that authority and we could be making a mistake. This isn't an either/or. You are making use of a computer, telephone, I will assume modern medicine to solve some problems, no bowing required. To understand what you are referring to I would need to have you sort out more explicitly your "inner" experience from your religious beliefs. Science doesn't offer paradise, but humans beings have come up with quite a few ideas about paradise, and the version that is Christianity has appealed to you and you find it satisfying and it gives you hope. I've no problem with that. It's when believers in whatever religion claim exclusive truth and righteousness that I think the process becomes dangerous. When they go further and state that beliefs that disagree with theirs are evil or the result of evil beings then the situation has degenerted into something potentially pernicious.lfen

Incognito,You seem to largely use the Bible to support the Bible. Are you limiting errancy to contradictions in the Bible? Have you other evidence of manna other than Bible? You are being flippant here. This doesn't constitute a refutation and you are misrepresenting your own source, does this mean you concede you can't support your assertion? It is sounding like you may be basing your acceptance of the Bible on a refutation of science and history? Interesting approach but you need to be specific about what the assumptions are and why you find fault with them. Of course a carte blanc dismissal of science and history leaves you in a better position for carte blanc acceptance of the Bible as literally true but you got to do a lot more than than claim you know that assumptions of science and history are baseless.You know I'm beginning to wonder if you might not be a clever troll. I've had suspicions about Tom in this regard. You tend to introduce offbeat approaches and then push them way past all reason, just the approach I take when I put people on, pushing to see how far I can take it before they clue in to the absurdity I have been inflating. hmmmm? Whichever, I'd very much like to hear your deconstruction of science and history. If you will do that for me, I'll explain to you how pizza and beer together make a complete food as long as you include anchovies for the omega 3 oils And if I am slow in responding it may be because I've received no notification that you posted as you aren't replying to posts but instead are making unreferenced compilation replies.lfen

I believe OEC. I fail to see any relevancy. I read the article. It's a typical debate over the interpretation of a fossil. You claimed it was a modern duck, no one in the article did, only that it might have been an ancestor of modern ducks, or not. Here is another story about a fossil pre bird dinosaur. It has no relevancy to this post but may be of interest to you. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Four-winged dinos from China When you looked into the "assumptions science/history is based on" what did you find that you believe invalidates OEC, archeology, history etc. enough to result in you choosing a YEC Bible is literally true belief?What did you find that allowed you to dismiss all the figures showing the Flood was impossible. Or the utter lack of evidence that there was any magnificent palace or stables of Solomon, or that millions of slave/workers ever exited Egypt en mass to pick three myths that you claim to have actually occurred.How did you discredit academic science, history, archeology enough for you to claim that when it conflicts with the Bible you will choose the Bible account barring it being proved wrong and given your current belief system what would constitute proving the Bible wrong?If you don't accept that many nations seemed to have existed during the time of the flood without being interrupted by submersion or that there is simply not enough water, or that geology has failed to find evidence to support the flood and rather has shown there has been no uniform submersion, then I don't see you ever accepting anything as proof that the Bible is wrong. That is certainly your right and I've no problem with that but what is the point of this exercise? I don't believe in astrology either. But is an explanation no matter how fanciful all that it would take? I mean this Walt character has an explanation for the flood. Tom found it acceptable enough even though it is easily debunked as totally fallacious pseudo science, it never the less is an explanation that has a scientific appearance. Is that all it takes?lfen

How do you know which "internal perception" is whose? i.e. when you had an internal perception how do you decide to assign it to God, yourself, or if you are like Buz and some others believe in demons to a demon?Ever see the movie Animal House? Where the guy had a little angel and little devil on this shoulders talking to him? They do this in cartoons also.ABE: [clicked submit now by mistake.] I don't think that is what you mean but you are making choices about your thoughts, intentions, beliefs and in doing so it sounds to me like you are assigning some to God, some to what you call yourself but this self is not identical with the self making the selection? I'm wondering if you think that others might have similiar experiences to yours only the perceptions you call "God Himself" they might term Krishna, or their higher self, or organismic intelligence?lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 01-26-2005 14:43 AM

Incognito,Okay, I see science is not your cup of tea and the Bible is the happier way for you to go. Best of luck,lfen

Phat,I just started looking at the link. Have you offered it to Brian in his thread on the exodus? This seems like it's something we should all be discussing.lfen

Tom,So are you agreeing with me that it is a poetic expression?lfen