Dear Readers:
To Brian: The main message is for you and it is the last string (you asked a great question). I do have a brief message for you directly below:
First I have some word of thanks to say to the following individuals:
-Brian
-PaulK
-the 2 administrators
To: Paulk and Brian and moderators/administrators:
First of all, I would say thanks to Brian and Paulk because although they have disagreed with me that did not resort to personal insults. The purpose of debate should be the discovery and refining of our knowledge of truth and not to see who can heap the most accusations and insults.
Secondly, I would like to thank the moderators because I did not look closely enough at your board guidelines. Posting information resources is not within the boards parameters of purpose. The purpose of the board is focused on discussion/debate. I can see the wisdom of this policy because although the posting of resources has its place, discussion and debate if done well can create new knowledge that can be beneficial to all. Also, having your own beliefs challenged can refine one's own beliefs. Plus if one has to defend one's own beliefs if forces you to be knowledgable or at least to seek new knowledge.
TO: Damien
I do not feel that ad hominems (attack the person rather than the content of the material I have placed in this forum) have a place in debates. There is a forum that attracts a extremely high level of debate between skeptics and Christians. To be fair, it does contain a much older crowd and you have to pay to get in the discussion (a subscription to the debate magazine although you can read featured article of the magazine online). I guess I have learned through my experiences with yahoo the value of diplomacy, tact, and listening to the other party. This other forum (the subscription magazine) further confirmed to me the value of these practices. I would say that I have grown and developed some useful skills as a result of my yahoo experiences. I have also seen where I could have done better and/or made mistakes during my yahoo Atheist v Christian debate room experiences as I was new to debating plus unaccostomed to having a great deal of people attack me at once (the room holds 40 people and most are atheist). On the other hand, I take full responsibility for any failings I had since without taking responsibily you can never grow as a person plus I believe that Christians should set an example and be the salt of the earth. Life should be a learning experience regardless of whether or not you are a Christian or professed atheist. Even the New Testament shows where Peter and John developed as people as time goes on. That should be true of most people but sadly it often isn't. As far as what the yahoo room is like I feel I do not have to say more since every reader can visit there and see for him or herself and draw their own conclusions on whether or not it is often pure pandemonium. After all is said and done I freely chose to visit yahoo during 2003 although I could have been doing better things.
Additional Note to PaulK:
First of all, I wanted to thank you for being a amicable discussant. However, I do have a suggestion to offer. Paul, although I accidently did not follow the boards policies as far as wanting to post and stating that I did not want to debate, I do feel as though since you clearly wanted to debate me that you would have supported your assertions. For example, you said the evidence goes against the Canaan Conquest account and the Noah account but you never stated the reasons. Secondly, you stated there was absolutely no valid defenses regarding the Nativitity account and other Bible matters. It seem to me if you are going to make that assertion you need to show why all, most, or at least the major defenses proposed regarding the Nativity, etc are untenable. I know I have posted links rather than debated but at least I gave some information that supported my position.
To RRomans:
I should have made myself clearer. I do realize that copyist errors are in the Bible. The copyist error you gave is called a accretion error. I believe the original copies were inerrant. I know there is no ancient body of literature that is more textually pure or supported by many copies than the NT (see work of Metzger or FF Bruce). I also know the Dead Sea scrolls show that the Massorites transmission of the Old testament was remarkable. I do not believe that any Christian doctrine is dependent on a variant copy based on my study of the issue. I know that some say that some nuances of doctrine are affected but I feel that if these people lived in the Middle ages they would be arguing how many angels can fit on a pin. In short, I think they are nitpickers majoring on the minute minors. I could expand on this matter but I would rather cover new ground in this post. I am sure you can research this yourself quite easily since inerrantist have discussed this matter widely.
To Mr. Hambre:
I believe that the Bible has mysteries how did God create the Universe in 6 days) but it has no errors or contradictions. In short, I believe God is Holy and without blemish and that he is consistent and logical and that He has communicated to us truly and honestly in the Bible. Also, if He makes promises He is going to keep them. I would recommend reading the works of RC Sproul. In short, I do not believe in a cafeteria approach to the Bible. I do not believe that option is open to us. I want to cover some new ground that has not been covered at EVC forum and I am sure if you want to read more about this view you can easily find the resources. If you want resources to examine this view just post a response saying you do and I will gladly be of help. The Bible's own testimony is that it is the Word of God and every word of God is pure. Also, Revelations does not exactly encourage people adding or subtracting words to the book. I think Americans/westerners/and others taking a "cafeteria approach" to the Bible" is partly due to excessive consumerism (and excessive democratization where people think they can vote what should be in the Bible) and people think they can shop the Bible for whatever they want to adhere to. For example, some people might not like that "take up you cross daily" verse but really like "God giving you the desires of your heart". I think God ask for discipleship and the pick and choose option is not the best option. Ultimately though, the Bible does declare it is the word of God and shows evidence of this. Ultimately, I believe that rejecting Bible passages for spurious reasons such as lack of faith is rebellion (I realize that we are not under the Old Testament Law or that some people think that women having to wear head coverings is no longer in effect due to it no longer signifying you are a "loose woman" [I realize this can be a controversial issue and offer no opinion on this for the sake of brevity]).
To Brian:
You raised the best question of all I thought. Is proving an inerrant Bible possible? That seems to be the $64,000 question doesn't it?
Here is a scenario:
You are in a cab. A doctor is in the cab next to you. Suddenly, you feel immense pain in your midsection. You tell the doctor where it hurts. The doctor proceeds then to ask you some questions. The doctor then says, "I think we need to rush to the hospital. I think you have an acute problem with your appendix. You ask the doctor: "Are you absolutely sure? Is it possible it is something else?" The doctor says, "Well it is possible I guess that it is something else, but I strongly recommend we rush to the hospital right now." You say, "Well, If you are not absolutely sure I am not going to the hospital. I am going to visit my girlfriend."
I would say the above illustration shows the difference between moral certainty and absolute certainty. I would argue that we can have great moral certainty regarding inerrancy based on our intellectual abilities. I also would say that in everyday life we constanty make decisions using moral certainty and not absolute certainty. I also know from experience and the experience of others that God can and does reveal Himself, His thoughts regarding Scripture, also He reveals what wants for us to those who diligently seek Him. Do all diligently seek Him? The Bible says indicates that few do seek God, but He is available.
So how can one attain this moral certainty regarding the great reliability of the Scriptures - namely Bible inerrancy - using the brain I believe God has given us? One way Christians try to pursuade others, and I would not recommend this, is to do the following: argue about the fossil record gaps using a lot of respected scientists and examples, quote other scientists and examples regarding the richness of the fossil record created by the over 100 million fossils recorded in natural museums, quote neo-darwinists and punctuated equilibrium scientists bickering among themselves over germaine matters, and lastly, quote a evolutionists saying in the Wall Street Journal on June 15, 1979 saying "the creationists tend to win the debates." I know this type of debate and have seen it and even particated in it myself in it myself. At best, I think it can only eliminate an objection to the Bible. Plus, I have seen the two sides go at it for days or weeks or months without much being accomplished. Also, I do not think it is going to persuade people of Bible inerrancy or Christianity. I know that many Christians try this method to show that Christianity and the Bible is valid and sometime it may even be very helpful but it is not going to create a revival. I do think that the discussion certainly has its place though and hence many this board's forums have a place.
Here is what I believe is a better way:
Since this is a science forum I will illustrate things in a scientific manner. Inductive logic, which science uses, is where we generalize from particular items to general conclusions.
Following this logic, if the Bible regularly turns out true regarding matters we can verify and its detractors in error we can expect more of the same. In life, if a individual is regularly reliable we are more likely to trust him the next time.
Now I would argue that we should strive to first examine the things that are easiest attainable and then move up step by step in difficulty during this verification process of the Bible. I have given the examples, of the hyrax, lions, cobra, and stars where the consensus of scientists were wrong and the Bible proved to be right in the long run. There are other examples as well in science. I am sure if you will do a study of Christian apologetics through a Christian bookstore or though the web resources I have given you will see more examples. Given my time constraints I have I cannot offer you more at this time (I said I cannot debate. Starting tommorow I am putting more hours in with my work plus there are other matters as well).
Now here is a very important question. What is the Bible's batting average in terms of being right in the long run on historical matters? I you look at the forward the a new Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman you will find that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach. Is Barton or Muddiman a Bible inerrantist? No they are not. But I think it is fair to say that they are admitting that the Bible's critics have been proved historically wrong in many cases. If you do further research you will see this was accomplished though archeaology and other methods.
Brian, I would encourage you to explore this matter more. I wish I had more time to give you.
This is my last post perhaps for some months.
I would encourage another Christian to continue this discussion or perhaps this string will remain dormant for a while.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-19-2004]
Adminnemooseus
™ Version 4.2