Inerrant Bible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]Belief in the Inerrancy of the Bible requires strong bias, that is, a stablished faith in the gospel of the Christ of God dying for persons' sins, being buried, raising up, and ascending up on high for persons' eternal justification. Once this strong bias, the Christian faith, is established within an individual, then and only then will the Bible manifest itself as inerrant.[/QUOTE]

​

Why? I know lots of Christians who believe Jesus died for their sins, yet do not hold the Bible as inerrant, particularly in matters of natural phenomena.

​

quote:

---

Our repeated doting of numbers, empirical mechanisms of biblical events, minor translational glitches, etc. cannot violate the inerrancy of the Bible.

---

​

Why not? Rabits either chew their cud, or they don't. Either there was a worldwide flood which buried all the fossils at once, or their wasn't. Either the Earth is 6,000 years old and thousands of Geologists and Astrophysicists are utterly wrong, or it isn't and they aren't.

​

quote:

---

The Bible also proves itself inerrant with multi-faceted non-empirical mechanisms involving: history, poetry, perspective-observations, prophecy, legalistic comparisons, etc.

---

​

Um, how does a non-emperical test 'prove' anything? How does poetry support the inerrancy of the Bible? Is it the rhyming?

​

[QUOTE]Find me a person that really believes Jonah was in the belly of a whale 3 days and 3 nights. Such a believer would have to be extremely biased, i.e., an enlivened Christian, alone.[/b]

---

What is an "enlivened" Christian?Also, I am not sure what your position is by your post. Are you saying that the Bible is inerrant, or not?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation.[/QUOTE]

​

But why does this have any special meaning as far as inerrancy, compared to any other Bible story?

​

I mean, you can't use a story in the Bible to prove that the whole Bible is inerrant.

​

quote:

---

For this gospel is extremely conspicuous (as devised by God Himself) throughout those scriptures alone.

---

​

So says you. That's a nice theology, but it is based upon faith alone.

​

quote:

---

Science also bears witness to such a gospel via the appearances of ID (think Honda-Civic)

---

​

I'm thinking Honda Civic, but what does that have to do with ID?

​

When you can show me a Honda that reproduces itself by mating with another Honda, we might have something to talk about.

​

[QUOTE], a manifest multi-tiered ?curse?, and observed ?redemptive?/?restoring? events.

​

Care to hear more, anyone?[/b]

---

I'm not really sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Well, that was Brad-like. I think you just responded to what I hope was a reasoned argument with a sermon. Do you have any responses to anything I said?

​

--Percy

---

​

--Respectfully, who here has not been Brad-like in our self-deceiving generalizing ?proofs? based on science falsely so-called? Myself, Quetzel, Dr. Taz, Moose, Joe, TC, TB, JP? When it comes to boldly formulating the necessary mutations in the ToE, we?re ALL suddenly BRAD-LIKE, no?[/QUOTE]

​

Um, I have not been Brad-like.

​

Not even once.

​

You, on the other hand, are avoiding answering plain-language questions and points by becoming , er, Brad-like.

​

[QUOTE]--Respectfully, Percy, what other things did you really want to address?
--Wasn?t I merely invoking ?natural? non-NT proofs, with conclusions based on natural observations ? on the existence and the nature of ID (where did we mis-communicate)? I thought I provided you a short string of natural observations/potential proofs on the (ID) nature of ?restorative? events. This is not true sermon material (see below).
--Sermon material is ?I?m a miracle, you?re a miracle?, ?I?m a sinner, you?re a sinner?, ?we all justly deserve to be damned?, ?Christ came to totally forgive the idiotical sinners?, etc.
--Just because I stated much observable phenomenon appears ?restorative?/?redemptive? in nature.
--Albeit, my responses may indeed be ?sermon-like?/sermonoid. Huxley spoke against sin as an evo-atheist. It seems impossible to come up with an ID that isn?t Gospel-like I?m afraid. With any other ID model, ?as it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP.?

​

[/B]

---

Blah blah blah blah blah.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I think I agree with you here.
(Note: I'd like to see non-evangelicals give some scientific workup(s) of their ID(s) and the nature(s) thereof)

---

You aren't likely to find "scientific" workups of these things from non-literalists because they don't confuse religion/spirituality with science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation.

​

But why does this have any special meaning as far as inerrancy, compared to any other Bible story?
I mean, you can't use a story in the Bible to prove that the whole Bible is inerrant.

​

--The problem (I perceive) with the Bible, is that every page requires this Christ phenomenon for it to be inerrant and credible, even in Genesis 1 and 2. Remove the interdependent Christ model and the scriptures become mere ethical fables, no more trustworthy then the Haitian Voodoo fables (aka. blatant Devil worship).

---

"Mere" ethical fables? Your beliefs aside, these "mere" ethical fables have molded the moral backbone of much of western civilization.Oh, and your comment about Hatian Voodoo and "the Devil" just shows that you believe in the Devil, and that you don't know much about the origins of Voodoo. Your religion has as much scientific evidence as Voodoo does.

quote:

---

-- Show me a page in the Bible that makes sense without the Christ motif. You yourself might say: Proverbs, Job, the historical books, etc. But, I respond, these OT books are all supersaturated with ?cursed? and ?redemptive? data (natural and supernatural) and direct portraits/figures of the Christ to be sans the Christ model.

---

Look, why are you talking about all of this??You are claiming that the reason you, Philip, believe that the Bible is inerrant is because you believe that one of the stories in the Bible is true. We are simply pointing out that you cannot logically use one story out of many in the Bible and then point to the rest of the Bible and say "See? None of this works unless this one story is true, so it is all true, except for the Old Testament."Can't you see how you have to do some gymnastics, logically, to get to where you are?

quote:

---

--This will sound crazy to you, Shraf, but the Gospel ?story? is more scientific than the scriptures. We both may agree that the scriptures do not employ a scientific method. The Bible merely telescopes the science of Christ?s vicarious sufferings and resurrection in all things.

---

You play fast and loose with the definition of science; http://www.skepdic.com/science.html"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."Explain to me again how your muddled musings fit this definition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
(Philip) For this gospel is extremely conspicuous (as devised by God Himself) throughout those scriptures alone.
So says you. That's a nice theology, but it is based upon faith alone.

​

--That?s a conclusive faith based on hypothesis, methods, testing, observed data, results, and conclusions, using the scientific method.
(please, see my discussion with John, in this thread)

---

See my definition of science above, and explain to me how God, as a phenomena, is testable.Besides, "conclusive faith" isn't science, because science doesn't rely on faith, nor is it ever considered to be "conclusive".If you cannot think of any evidence which could ever sway you from your "theories", then you, by definition, are not doing science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
(Philip) ?Science also bears witness to such a gospel via the appearances of ID (think Honda-Civic)

​

I'm thinking Honda Civic, but what does that have to do with ID?
When you can show me a Honda that reproduces itself by mating with another Honda, we might have something to talk about.

---

--ID is apparent (to varying degrees) in all things, even to you Shraf. [QUOTE] Is it now? You propose to read minds, as well?

quote:

---

You might cleverly explain it away 99%, but it nonetheless suggests itself to your ?scientific? conscience (I believe) from time to time ? under a different guise perhaps.

---

So, can't show me a Honda that can reproduce itself, right?
You are making up stories about what you wish I thought about ID. Must be nice to be able to believe what you want to believe instead of dealing with the actual issues and their specifics.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-05-2002]

quote:

---

-I hope we can re-group. I almost agree with the skeptic?s (Carl Sagan?s) definition of science here.

---

Carl Sagan didn't write this definition, but it does come from a Skeptic's site."Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods hich provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."

quote:

---

--Presently, just how logically cohered to scientific reasoning and methods are you, Shraf?

---

Um, I understand the scientific method as well as most science-minded people in this forum, and far, far better than the public at large.Why do you ask?

quote:

---

Can one parsimoniously limit scientific deduction to mere ?seeable? events.

---

Yes, one can limit science in that scientific observations must be repeatable and not purely subjective.

quote:

---

Is not science also ?beautiful? (i.e., with various harmonious, symmetrical, and proportional excellencies and relationships), and not limited by skeptical restrictions you or I may impose on what is and is not empirical?

---

Are you talking about the scientific method here?I think that nature is beautiful, and the scientific method, with all of its important and useful restrictions, is the best way we have to understand nature.

quote:

---

--You disallow meager idiots (myself and all YECs) to make ?hypotheses? based on the observed data, of the science of the Christ and Him cursed, decayed, destroyed, yet risen from the dead, only because you seem (respectfully) extremely biased.

---

What data? I haven't seen any data.(If you have to put the word "hypothesis" in quotes, what is that supposed to tell me about the quality of your science, hmmm?)Yes, you are right, I am extremely biased towards good science and extremely biased against poor scholarship and religious/political agendas.

quote:

---

Your superfluity of hand-waving responses seems to betray extreme uncertainty and extreme bias in this regard.

---

I'll just ignore that, because it isn't true and is a "I know you are but what am I" kind of response.

quote:

---

quote: by Shraf
"Mere" ethical fables? Your beliefs aside, these "mere" ethical fables have molded the moral backbone of much of western civilization.

​

--What? Judaism with its impossible ordinances and he-goat sacrifices? How so? What moral backbone?: Secular humanism, divorce, sodomy, pedophilia?

---

Um, you are confused. You said that without taking the Bible literally, it is reduced to being 'merely' a list of ethical fables. I then said that this book has been a major influence on culture and society in all of Western civilization. Are you denying that the Bible has been very influential to Western culture??BUT, since you bring up all of those bad cultural things (all happening in a very, very Christian country, the US of A), let me give you a little info on them:Secular humanism--Yep, those Humanists, they are really taking over. No religious holidays any more, and look at the Presidents! They can't be seen in Church without public outcry, and they don't swear into office with their HAND ON A BIBLE any more, either! Roving gangs of Secular Humanists committing crimes everywhere!divorce--bold emphasis added by me: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=C"Surprisingly, the Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. Nationally, 29% of all Baptist adults have been divorced. The only Christian group to surpass that level are those associated with non-denominational Protestant churches: 34% of those adults have undergone a divorce. Of the nation?s major Christian groups, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorced individuals (21%). People who attend mainline Protestant churches, overall, experience divorce on par with the national average (25%).Among non-Christian groups the levels vary. Jews, for instance, are among those most likely to divorce (30% have), while atheists and agnostics are below the norm (21%). Mormons, renowned for their emphasis upon strong families, are no different than the national average (24%).sodomy--If you don't follow the OT law against wearing garments with mixed fibers, I'm not sure why you are so against sex. What is immoral about sodomy if it is between consenting adults? I mean, really, why do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes? Seems rather intrusive and kind of wierd to me.pedophilia--Do you actually believe that pedophelia began with Western civilization? It has been around as long as rape and beating up women.

quote:

---

quote: by Shraf
Oh, and your comment about Hatian Voodoo and "the Devil" just shows that you believe in the Dvil, and that you don't know much about the origins of Voodoo. Your religion has as much scientific evidence as Voodoo does.

​

(Note Haitian translation in parenthesesJ)
--I just happen to know origins of the Haitian Voodoo, Shraf, fluently. (Mwen Konnen sous baggai ki nan Vodo Aietien-yo, Shraf)
--I know they worship the devil directly more than other Voodoos. (Mwen konnen yo adore diabla directment ki plis pase Vodo-l?ot peyi-yo)
--99% of Haitians ?believe? in Christ or else the devil, never evolution as we do. (99% Aietien-yo ?kwe? nan Kris-la selmen, osinon yo kwe nan diabla, you pap jam kwe nan evolucion tankou nou)
Why not take a lesson from our Haitian Voodoos, Shraf. They ALL strongly believe that evolutionists are a fraud while cheerfully confessing being under the power of the Devil, e.g., ?I am under the Devil? (?Mwen anba Diabla?). I here this all the time in Haiti, Shraf. Why? Because they know the science of Christ crucified/risen far more than you and I, and many choose the Devil directly (to consume their lusts), in lieu of any form of life-less atheism ? perhaps, because atheism/evolutionism gives them nothing at all. To you this may sound like a lot more fun, empirically.

---

I stand corrected, but again, what does this have to do with anything?

quote:

---

--I try to show you fully formulated work-ups of examples of observed empirical data on all cosmic levels, but you peradventure hand-wave them all (i.e., refuse to acknowledge them), peradventure, to sermonize other supposed ?empirical? constructs by begging ?science? itself, repeatedly. This may be parsimonious to you, but it is scientific inquiry?

---

I'm sorry, but you really haven't done anything like what you desribe.Try fewer big words and sermonizing and more answering the problems with your ideas which put to you.

quote:

---

--Well, I?m not trying to hand-wave the rest of your comments. They are all duly noted. Its real late. My apologies for crudeness, ineptness, hand-waving, incoherencies, slanders, and/or other ?sin?ister motives.

​

--(Please don?t place me on that ever-so-dreaded ?banish? list.)

---

What banish list?

So, are you going to discuss your forced logical gymnastics of using a Bible story as your reason for believing the inerrancy of the Bible, or are you just going to keep blowing smoke up our you-know-whats in the hopes that we will forget the original question that you STILL, afer all of those words you have typed, have NOT ADDRESSED?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, are you going to discuss your forced logical gymnastics of using a Bible story as your reason for believing the inerrancy of the Bible, or are you just going to keep blowing smoke up our you-know-whats in the hopes that we will forget the original question that you STILL, afer all of those words you have typed, have NOT ADDRESSED?

---

​

--Thanks for your kind re-invitation, Shraf.
--And what original question is that? Why the Bible is inerrant?
Only the DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION OF THE CHRIST FOR A ?CREATED?/?CURSED?/?RESTORED? CREATION IS PORTRAYED EVERYWHERE IN NATURE AND IN THE BIBLE.
--(1) In the Bible: No other mechanism could possibly hold the Bible together as the inerrant Word of God: the ?Christ and Him Crucified?, the Gospel Word (which you call another ?story?) is boldly ?portrayed? in every book of the Bible. No one, even honest atheist, denies that.[/QUOTE]

​

It is illogical to say that becase a particular theme runs through a book, and without that theme the book would make no sense, the book is therefore proven to be inerrant.

​

That is like saying that the Harry potter books would make no sense if the Character of Harry Potter wasn't really the only in the world kid who survived an attack by You Know Who. Of course the book wouldn't make any sense if you messed about with the main theme, but how does this translate into evidence, somehow, of the book being inerrant?

​

quote:

---

--(2) In nature (cosmos): The observed data on all cosmic levels suggests ?creation ID?,?curse?, and ?redemption?/?restoration?,

---

​

So says you. What, am I supposed to just believe you because you say something is so? Gimme a break.

​

quote:

---

that is inexcusable for denying such a nature on empirical grounds.

---

​

OK, tell us how we can tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that arose through natural means.

​

Unless you can do that, you are promoting the ol' God of the Gaps Argument.

​

quote:

---

Again, I thought I made that clear on this thread (I even gave hundreds of empirical observations of such on this very thread):

---

​

You thought wrong.

​

quote:

---

--Respectfully Shraf, concerning ?divorce?: one of my statements, on this here thread (message 58), already stated ?even atheists are observed to ?marry? with relatively low divorce rates (i.e., compared to evangelicals)? This was the very post (#58) that contains much of my materials and methods, observed data, etc.; I'm beginning to wonder if you ever read it. Did you read it, Shraf?

---

​

You might have said that, but then you seemed to change your tune and list divorce as evidence of the immoral Western culture, led astray by Secular Humanism.

​

[QUOTE](--But you?ve done me no wrong, as long as I'm not banished forever on you or Quetzel's 'ignore' list.)

​

--Hey, what about you other evo?s (and YECs) out there? Stop hiding behind phylogenetic ?trees? and help a sister out here:
Might the Bible be inerrant by any other mechanism (using the ?rule? of parsimony and likeliest cause) ?
Again the mechanism of Biblical inerrancy I postulate is: THE SCIENCE OF CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED, that is so 'reflected' (like electrons in electron microscopes) by what we see and expect to see in nature all around us. (HALLELUIAH--IOW I?m sermonizing sister! Somebody stop me!)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-07-2002][/B]

---

Now you are babbling in order to avoid answering my direct questions.This is becoming a waste of my time.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.I think.You consider the Bible inerrant because of your subjective, relavatory, religious experience, not because of any objective, independant, factual evidence.While I do not share your convictions, but as they are purely religious, I have no opinion one way or the other.But why, then, do you constantly try to bring science into your justifications for your religious belief?You mix them both together as if these ways of knowing were conducted in exactly the same way. They couldn't be more different, and I think you know it.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"