Inerrancy of the Bible 2

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

In my narrow viewpoint, I am personally limiting "errors" to the following (I can't answer for "36 Christians"):
1) Wrong word used in reference to KJV-era English. If a word was incorrectly used when written it is an error, our modern definitions have no relevance here. Again, we're not debating "most up-to-date."
2) Biblical contradictions that are actual contradictions, reader misunderstanding doesn't equal KJV error
3) Historical inaccuracies - i.e. we have historical proof, not just speculation that the Biblical account is wrong.
4) Physical Phenomenon is a tough line to walk. How much evidence does one need before we accept "God did the rest?" If you can prove that the Earth could have tilted, or other civilizations noticed a "sun change" do you then accept it? I would argue that the key to miracles is not 100% proof, but the plausibility of it happening given our knowledge of conventional time/space. For example - we don't need proof the Earth tilted on a particular day - we just have to know if it could have tilted in 1 day...
5) Anything else we can't logically explain. I'm more stumped as to how the Hebrews got lost for 40 years then I am by the likelihood of manna falling from the sky.Those limits too unreasonable for you?Yes, the duck comment was flippant (although relevant for anybody believing OEC)The Bible is not a refutation of science and history. The Bible is a written history that includes aspects of science as well as being God's Word. I think of science and history as a way to better understand God's Creation/Word/history - not as tools to destroy it. That said, if there is a historical/scientific discrepancy with the Bible, I'm going to side with the Bible until it's proven wrong (just as many of you will side with anti-Creation science before accepting Biblical accounts). Christians who buy into OEC/Evolution are just as bad as the Christians who bought into Greek Earth-Centered science (never mix God's Word with unproven/faulty science)What is absurd? To think that Nile Valley Egypt only had a 11.69per1000 growth rate or to point out the error in thought? How about "40,000 stalls OF horses" for "4,000 stalls of chariots and horses?" It's more absurd to think that wrong then it is to point out the reader's erroneous interpretation. As I said before, if I can't explain it, I won't - like the Influences of Pleiades. I'm not sure how that can be explained without reverting to Astrology...

Sorry, I've not been able to respond before the last thread ceased.You Christians have had thousands of years to sort out the typos and contradictions in your book. You are close, particularly with the later editions, but the KJV has a few problems that you guys have to bend over backwards to rationalise.Incognito wrote, in his usual arrogant and dismissive church elder tone: You could easily say, some scribe dropped a "0", but nooooo, not with the guiding power of the Holy Spirit.In the above, the distinction between the use of the word "of" and "for" is largely immaterial. Both words associate the stalls with the horses and chariots.So we have one verse 2 Chron. 9:25 claiming 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.How many horse stalls for chariot horses is that? Does this also suggest that the chariots were parked in some of the stalls further reducing the number of stalls for chariot horses!?1 Kings 4:26 claims 40000 stalls of horses for his chariots.How many horse stalls for chariot horses is that? We not only have a numerical discrepency we have a conflict is proposed stall usage. Incognito, answer me, how many stalls did Solomon have for horses used for his chariots?????Some of my other contradictions in the previous thread were merely dismissed with the unevidenced co-regency claim.These ones weren't addressed: This was addressed but remains a contradiction: Sources:
Page not found » Internet Infidelshttp://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

---

"Books must follow sciences, not sciences books"Francis Bacon

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

You dealt with how?? By saying that god gave them manna for 40 years. WOW.. What a silly answer. COme on now, where does it say that god provided manna for 40 whole years?? Where did they get water? Where
did they camp, and put their refuge?? (show me the arcelogical site).I mean, are you for real?? You are coming up with the most strange and bizarre ways to try to explain away things, that frankly, do not even begin to succeed.I mean, trying to say that Judas was hung, and then had his entrails
blow out after he started to decompose is really strange, and just shows the lengths the passages in question have to be twisted to provide the answer.. thanks for the link though.. I will have to post
it for people who remember a similar explaintion that they laughted at.And frankly, trying to use a site dedicated to try to convert Jewish people for the meaning of Pierced is hardly what I consider a valid source on the biblical meaning of words. It is just repeating a lie.
Over and over again. What is it, if you want to know what biblical
hebrew means, don't ask a Rabbi, but ask a baptist instead??This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-24-2005 09:35 AMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 01-24-2005 09:40 AM

Hmm... These are tough... I've looked but came up empty-handed.1) The stalls issue holds if you recognize the fact that the 40,000 horse stalls are for the 4,000 chariot stalls - no contradiction or need for speculation - the wording speaks for itself.2) How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? I think it was Tom who tried to answer this by saying that nobody reigns at age 8 and must have had a "Royal helper"... I will admit this answer is extremely weak but it is the only thing I can come up with... Unlike Noah and his sons, I can't argue this is a case of specifics vs. generalities because the 2 Chronicles 36:9-10 is more specific on the reign yet more vague on when Nebuchadnezzer sent for him. I will have to concede this one unless somebody can give me reason to believe that the ancient Hebrews just liked to play word games.3) How many talents? The only way to answer this one is to get nit-picky and make an extremely futile argument that the Chronicles account seems to indicate that both servants brought talents while the Kings account could be interpreted as just one set of servants bringing talents.. Again, a very weak argument unless it can be proven that the Hebrews liked word games.4) This would have to be an error. I won't even bother trying.5) Can't dispute it. Even looking for verbal holes I'm at a loss.6) The Shem issue is easily disputable... "And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." It doesn't say Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem, it reads like he was at least 500 years old before begatting three kids. They seperated the thoughts to emphasize this point...Alright, I'll give the KJV has 3 errors of what I've seen so far from this forum. 1) Sweet Influences 2) Famine years 3) Horseman numbers. I'm on the fence on the Jehoiachin and the talents - I think you can "read into them." I will no longer back "36 Christians" claim of KJV inerrancy, although I would still be willing to back the claim of "Biblical message inerrancy."

Ifen,1) No relevancy for the duck? If Macro-Evolution is legitimate - how has the duck barely changed in 70 million years? I guess you could argue that the duck reached a "perfect" zenith 70 million years ago, but if that were the case, nothing would ever evolve. I will not dispute that small dinosaurs could possibly glide - squirrels can.2) What did I find? Nothing new, I just looked into the massive amount of assumptions that Dating techniques and evolution are built on and realized that it wasn't all as factual as scientists have led us to believe. In fact, best I can tell, the only evidence that the Earth is old is that "Evolution takes a long time" so therefore the Earth must be old. It's just circular reasoning.But again all of the following points are for another forum:3) I used to think the flood was crazy too. But looking at the big picture - it is actually more logical then all the other "theories." Evidence of a global flood would be: much sediment movement, many dead things, and a lot of water involved. The facts speak for themselves - we have a lot of sediment movement, and many dead things, not to mention the fact that Japanese scientists are convinced the Earth's mantle contains 5 times as much water as the surface... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7_0307_waterworld.html4) I'm no archaeologist but this AIG answer on Solomon works for me
False HistoryOut with David and Solomon! | Answers in Genesis 5) The millions of slaves exiting I don't have a problem with - it's how they possibly could have gotten lost that confuses me.6) How do I discredit science in favor of the Bible?
a. All dating techniques are built on assumptions that have been proven wrong multiple times. If they really were reliable they'd be correct almost all the time - not just occasionally.
b. Historical accounts outside the Bible are either non-existent or written by people that even historians don't quite trust.
c. Archaeology relies on dating techniques that are questionable at best.7) How did multiple nations exist during the time of the flood? We don't even know how old most of these civilizations (dating techniques are faulty at best) are nor why they all seemed to "magically" appear around rivers at roughly the same time... Kind of like Babel...8) Not enough water? Check my above National Geographic link - I used to believe that there wasn't enough water too...9) Uniform dispersion... Ever been to the beach? Ever seen how sand loses its firmness when you hit the water table? I'll buy into the argument that different objects (animals, etc) would sink to different depths. Not to mention the fact that we don't know if there were any repeat local floods (like Lake Missoula) after the main flood.10) The evidence speaks for itself? Scientists came up with "snow-ball Earth" off of some rocks in Scotland and at the equator - somehow that was enough evidence for a theory? The Flood is much more plausible.

quote:

---

a. All dating techniques are built on assumptions that have been proven wrong multiple times. If they really were reliable they'd be correct almost all the time - not just occasionally.

---

Would you be willing to go to one of the dating threads and back that asseration - you must be joking if you think people would like that old chestnut pass.

Exodus 16:35 - And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.Water? There are wadis, and the terrain was obviously different if you are a YEC (all that "ancient" terrain can't be that ancient).Where'd they camp? Not sure - I can't imagine they'd have left much evidence though since they didn't have much reason to cook...You don't like the Judas explanation? Please explain how a "living" Judas tripped on his toes and then exploded when he hit the ground...How would a present day Rabbi know anymore about ancient Hebrew then anybody else? He wouldn't. In fact, it doesn't matter what your faith/ethnic background, we're all starting from the same place (history books)...

Eventually. One topic at a time for me though. Gotta live life too.I'll now concede that the KJV has "errors" but if anybody wants to post anymore I'd like to see them...

Opening line of the link (my bolding) : Towards the end of the article : "may" "plausible" - not exactly "convinced" I would say.

---

Confused ? You will be...

when you have got the chance, take a look - you may be the first creationist who actually knows what they are on about rather than just parroting rubbish from AIG.Maybe....

Boy, you like to really avoid the issue. Even if the bizare concept you have they ate manna is true (very unbiblical besides no evidence for), then they would still have to eat, sleep, and leave their bowel movements.. there is more to traveling than eating..

Read this link. There is more than one side to any situation or interpretation.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/features/exodus.phpThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-26-2005 07:00 AM