Flaws in the Scriptures

Although I am very interested in seeing this discussion played out and having some part, I must admit there is some hesitance due to the potential confusion. It should be obvious, but in case not, I am "apostolos" a greek word meaning sent one, not "Apostle" the english transliteration of that word. Also, I always include my first name at the end of my posts.Now, jumping right in I would like to deal with a quote and make one observation.

quote:

---

Okay I will abide by that however for purposes of clarity do we consider the bible to be literal if it is to be inerrant?

---

The answer is yes, most times. Please understand I do not seek to confuse you or undermine the authority of the text of the Bible. I think it would be understood, however, that saying the Bible is to be taken literally can be taken to a literal extreme. For example, my name is not really "apostolos", rather I am expressing some part of my self by taking on that name. So with scripture, there are portions that are figurative examples, or poetic devices, or prophetical utterances. The point is that I think the answer to your question is that in making an interpretation of the scriptures, one must apply a practice conservative investigation which rests heavily on context. Mind you that is not just the context of the passage, the book or the whole Bible, but can go further to mean historical and cultural contexts at the time the events took place or were recorded (because the two are often not one). Thinking about this post, I am fearing it has been somewhat confusing thus far. I hope that will be cleared up over time if it is not clear now.My one observation is that I have read much assumption from the (if you will grant me the term) anti-Bible side. I know that is an inaccurate term to use, so please excuse my lack of grammatical efficiency and provide for me a more appropriate term to use. Now, I mean that the "conclusions" that are being stated so far concerning the Bible's errancy seem to be very much based on some kind of assumption. I would list them here but it would honestly be too long, I feel, for an introductory post. My point is just to call this to the surface of everyone's attention.Before you say I am like the "pot calling the kettle black", let me say that Genesis 1:1 begins with God's pre-existence. Some may call that an assumption. That's fine, I do not for some very logical reasons that I will not expand on at this time. The point is that the person beginning this thread, while it is "all of ours", is willingly taking on questions concerning discrepancy from a Biblical standpoint (at least that is my hope). I don't know how much help I will be to this whole matter, but at least grant us the priveledge of answering questions from the perspective of belief that is ours.Russ

Just so I understand, am I being given an equal voice in the debate or is my position being deemed unworthy before I have the opportunity to state it? Perhaps what I said was misunderstood.If you will go back and review the last paragraph in my first post (message #13), you will see the words "Biblical standpoint". Please note that I did not say rationalistic standpoint or any other such thing. This is not because I assume my position to be free from rationalism. Rather, it is because if there is any flaw in scripture, it must be considered within the context of scripture and the "spirit of the text" you seem to be so worried about defending.This principle is understood when developing a proper interpretation of any secular book. Why must it suddenly be strange and impossible when the book is a spiritual text? And as far as my perspective is concerned, if it is "implausible", then it will be clearly revealed to be so by a logically thorough examination. I have always understood this to be a normal part of debate ethic. Or am I asking for special priveleges?Russ

Sidelined,I found your post to be thought provoking. My answer to your question will be complex rather than simple. Although, in the complexity of the answer I have in mind (if I properly understand the question) there is a profound simplicity. So now that I have been completely elusive, let me begin my answer.Could you provide a specific frame of reference, an event in the scriptures that meets your criteria, which may serve as a medium for this discussion?Russ

Sidelined,I hope the issues Yaro raised in post #38 will be a sufficient starting point.Yaro,
I can tell that my knowledge of scientific matters is not at the level of w_fortenberry, so if you are looking for some scientific expostulation from a perspective different from his, I am sad to say I will most likely disappoint you. I will, however, take some time and examine the questions you brought up from the position of my understanding, which is very much centered on the text of the Bible. I will respond a.s.a.p, but that will not be until I have done some adequte research and review.Russ

I was considering the matters at hand and thinking about a response. I just let it slide a little to long. It seems to me now that things are progressing fine without me, as the dicussion has gone on without my imput. So I would rather stay out to avoid fragmenting the debate any further than it will most likely ultimately be anyway. If my absence still really bothers anybody let me know.Russ[edited to insert quote][This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-25-2003]