Inerrant Bible?

Boy are you in for it. I am what you would call a fundamentalist and I can answer your questions because I have found that upon examination, there are answers! Most who bring up critiques about the Bible have failed to look to see if there are answers and I suspect this is the case. For instance have you looked at a Bible commentary about this? Have you checked with the Book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" published in 1878 the corrects many of these types of questions? I haven't looked up the supposed contradiction you are positing (I just read your post about Biblical inerrancy) but I will and will get back to you shortly.What you should know is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth century. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek between 2000 B.C. and 70 A.D. When one takes into account the audience of the time and the original language I have never seen an apparent contradiction disappear. The Bible has been rigorously tested by archeology and as Nelson Glueck, world renowned biblical archeologist said 'there has never been an archeological find that contradicted anything in the bible' (paraphrased I'll provide you with the original, as I said I just read your post).
In short there is no such thing as evidence against the Bible and there is nothing but evidence for it. Those who differ are invariably (so far) in ignorance about this topic. They rely on other's opinions about the Bible and don't read both sides for themselves. I suggest you also get a hold of 'Evidence that demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell. He was a Philosophy major who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up proving it.------------------
theo

Hi Joz,Why do you presuppose the pyramids are ante-deluvian? Why can't they be after the flood? D'oh!------------------
theo

This is my last post tonight I swear!
Think Gene90, think! When was the flood according to Creationists? If you don't know then the pyramid argument dies. You don't know do you?I have a post in the young earth string that deals with biblical chronology that I will reiterate. I thought you were waiting on my every post, I guess I was wrong.Anyway, the dating from Adam to Abraham is unclear biblically (hence bishop ussher's mistake). We are uncertain as to how the Ancient Jews kept their timetable. When the record states so and so, son of so, it merely indicates progeny not parentage. When the record states so and so begat so and so then direct parentage is indicated. There are gaps in the chronology that are uncertain still. So in other words the date of the flood is unclear biblically that's why creationists refer to the decaying magnetic field etc...to argue a young earth. If the flood was 10,000 B.C. (which would upset radiometric dating by the way as well as any of the four supernova's in recorded history but I was saving that for the other string we were on) or even 5,000 B.C. that is enough time to produce the civilizations on the earth. At the time of Christ the population was two hundred million and now it is over 5 billion in 2000 years. D'oh squared times infinity!OH Yeah!------------------
theo

Sorry Joz,
When I wrote 'think Gene90, think' I was responding to you and screwed up my little barb. D'oh on me!------------------
theo

Talk about making something easy complex! Start with the original eight people from the arc and since creationists usually agree with the approximate age of the earth to be about 10,000 years old that would place the flood somewhere around 5000 B.C. Assume Noah and his wife didn't have any more kids and use the three sons and their wives as the progenerators and assume that they each had three children and that each generation had three children every twenty years (generous assumptions on my part, ancient civilizations had as many children as possible and probably at puberty not twenty). That yields the simple calculation of 3 to 25th power which is a possible population of 847,286,600,000 in five hundred years or approx 4500 B.C.Golly Gee, even rounding down because of the possible variables do you think there was enough time for the population to be large enough to produce the manpower for the pyramids? Quantum D'oh

If I reply will play nice? You got nasty in some other strings. Each breeding pair need only produce 3 off spring. 3 couples produce three children each (not six where did you get six?)= 9 for the first generation x 3 for the next generation = 27 x 3 and so on for 25 generations (waiting till age twenty to reproduce)= 500 years. My assumptions are generous and the math is simple. There is enough genetic variability in 3 different wives of difference races (I use the term race loosely, I don't believe in races) plus when on goes back in time fewer mutations creep in because of fewer generations of replication. Errors creep in with constant replication of cells. The further down the line we go the more replication hence more mutations. We are actually devolving as a species not evolving. A population of 800 billion is possible in 500 years so all the problems of mortality etc... are rendered insignificant when all I really need is a few million.O.K. now be nice!------------------
theo