The Inerrancy of the Bible

These threads already cover a lot of what you are asking about: Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?could moses have written the first five books of the bibleThere is no such thing as The BibleWhat is to be taken literally?Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical InerrancyIn addition it is clear from the information in the Dates and Dating thread that Genesis at least is very wrong.

It would be polite to offer a quick update on where you are.Is this the first drive by posting by school bus load??

I think 36 has left the building. It seems "they" are good at throwing out a challenge but don't like how difficult it is when the gauntlet is actually picked up. The jumped in without checking things out first and decided that the lions and tigers look a bit too hungry.

You are right, my apologies to 36C. I would like to know what the class thinks of the age of the earth. If they think it is different from a few billion years are they prepared to defend that too?

If What does this mean?? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-15-2005 13:51 AM

Good, I, for one, am glad that you are taking your time.When you do get time perhaps you can get to the interpretations of Genesis that you support? If it's a 6,000 year old earth. You could show why the scientific dating is wrong.

And how do you know it is a lie? Where did you get that idea that is what has been done?There is, Tom, somebody lieing, but it is whoever told you this.

Just once more 36, how old does the KJV say the earth is?Does it say man was created in the same week that all other living things were created?

What I have learned here about the Bible is that it actually doesn't say anything at all. That is why I ask 36C about what it says. It turns out that actually reading it does no good at all. Each individual tells me that what I read isn't what it says and each one tells me that it says different things.So I'm asking 36 this time.

Well, it is not actually off topic here if 36C thinks that the KJV establishes a wrong age for the earth. That would be an example of an error in it.However, even when on topic, some things are so large that they should be handled in another thread. We already have some dating threads open.Apparently you disagree with some of what is in those threads and make suggestions about what will and will not disuade me. You, however, don't have the intellectual guts to actually attempt to tackle those issues.Unlike yourself I do happen to know a bit about those subjects. And, generally, I don't make pronouncements about things that I don't know very much about.As for the fossile being young in old rock: we have had one person make himself look pretty foolish trying to support that idea.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2005 19:45 AM

That is exactly the point that Galileo made and the majority of believers seems to understand. That we now know how some literal interrpretions of Genesis are in error doesn't seem to have been grasped by many.All the gibberish there doesn't explain how with all the errors you make up that there are still strong correlations across independent methods.
Your suggestions are silly.

Who talks a lot but has yet to go to the dating correlations thread and supply any actual rebutal to it. This is a very common behaviour.