Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible inerrancy is well supported
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 61 (78887)
01-16-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by kendemyer
01-16-2004 1:09 PM


Re: brian's post and bees and misc
I've already looked at pages on some of the sites you recommend, and I find them to be full of excuses, wishful thinking and often errors.
If you really want to look for the truth then relying on the most extreme elements of one side of an argument is not the best policy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kendemyer, posted 01-16-2004 1:09 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 61 (78888)
01-16-2004 1:30 PM


to Paulk
I believe you are commiting a genetic logic fallacy in regards to the sources I have used.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-16-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2004 2:13 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 61 (78898)
01-16-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by kendemyer
01-16-2004 1:30 PM


Re: to Paulk
I don't see why you would think that. All I did was report my own observations on those I had looked out and point out that taking a balanced view of the evidence requires one to look at a variety of sources with a variety of opinions. You will admit, I hope, that Biblical inerrency itself is an extremist view among Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by kendemyer, posted 01-16-2004 1:30 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 61 (78913)
01-16-2004 4:15 PM


re: bible inerrancy
To: Paulk
In regards to your word extremist in regards to the Bible inerrancy issue,I prefer to use logic and facts rather than politicize the debate. One man's extremist is another man's moderate. For all issues, what is or may be true regarding an issue and what is or may be untrue regarding an issue is what matters.
To descend into politicalization of the debate creates a ad populum logical fallacy. We must remember that what is popular is not always true and what is true is not always popular. I have not taken a poll in regards to Christendom regarding Bible inerrancy nor have I searched for polling data. I know that various Christian positions go in and out of style. I believe in democratic forms of government, however, I do know that ultimately polls are not an effective way to determine truth.
As far as the issue of balance here is the problem I see with the issue being raised:
One man says there was a big bang to start the universe. Another man says there was not. The person who likes to take the balanced position says to himself "I need to take the balanced position" thus there must have been an explosion to start the universe but it was not a big explosion but a moderate one.
I am not against looking at various views regarding issues but I do not always feel compelled to take the middle position although I am not against it. Each issue is different and one needs to carefully weigh the underlying facts to determine the merits of various positions. In fact, one may even create a new position based on the facts (By the way, in regards to cosmology I think the evidence is for a non-eternal universe [thermodynamics] and that there probably was not a big bang. I base it though on the evidence I have read. Here are some interesting articles for those who may want to read it):
Page not found - Apologetics Press
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09N02PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-16-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2004 12:43 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 61 (78930)
01-16-2004 6:30 PM


Bible inerrancy is well supported:
Here is an excellent site for Historical apologetics to the Christian faith:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/historical.htm
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-10-2004]

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 61 (79048)
01-17-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kendemyer
01-16-2004 4:15 PM


Re: re: bible inerrancy
I am afraid that your choice of sites belies your claim that you prefer to look at logic and facts. Why refer to sites which are often weak on either but instead exist to support a particular viewpoint ?
And why describe a "balanced viewpoint" as just taking the middle ground without regard to the evidence ? Why use such a strawman ?
As I state inerrancy itself IS an extreme view. Since there are many issues on which the accuracy of the Bible cannot be known inerrancy must be a presupposition rather than a reliable conclusion. It follows then that any site committed to inerrancy is already biased - and therefore if there is any question of the reliability of the Bible in a particular issue it is necessary to examine all sides of the problem.
You could say for instance that since an apologetic site reports that a papyrus document describing the procedures for a Roman census in Egypt explains why Joseph would have to leave his home at Nazareth to register at Bethlehem that that is a fact. However if further investigation shows that the relevant passage states that it is those that are working AWAY from home who must travel TO their home to register then we see that neither facts not logic support the apologists claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 01-16-2004 4:15 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 61 (79080)
01-17-2004 3:42 PM


clarification to all and Paulk
Dear Readers:
In my initial post I stated that I wanted to furnish some resources to believers who have questions regarding the Bible. I also stated that I had no desire to wrangle with professed atheists. I also believe I have good reasons as I stated I had a lot of demands upon my time at the present moment. I also demonstrated that when skeptics are cross examined their attacks against the Bible fall short (see post 40 onward). Corporately the antagonist of Christianity has over 1,700 years to sift through the Bible in order to find any factual errors or contradictions. The Rimmer trial shows the weakness of their position. I believe rightly does the Bible say: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise....Where is the wise man?... Where is the scribe? Where is the debator of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...The grass withers. The flower fades but the Word of God abides forever." By the way, here is a answer to the hare/cud issue: http://EvC Forum: Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported! -->EvC Forum: Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported! (We will never know how prepared or ill prepared Dr. Rimmer's lawyer was due to the fact that the plaintiffs arguments crumbled so fast).
I will say that initially Paulk said there were no adequate explanations for maintaining Jesus's birth accounts (census). I would say that if he is going to make that claim he needs to cite each of the explanations given by Christians and show why they are in error. He never did that. Paulk would forced me to work a little bit if he had initially said this is why I think the birth account is untrue. But now I am going to ask him to support his initial claim. As far as the Roman census if the skeptic wants someone to debate him on this issue the Christian who wrote on the essay I referred to does offer a Dr. Rimmer type challenge regarding his essays. The skeptic is welcome to take him up on his challenge which is listed here: http://www.tektonics.org/masoud01.html (please pardon the title of this challenge. I am not goading anyone or implying anything about anyone. I am just saying if you want to debate someone on this topic there is someone available and I am guessing he would debate you in this particular string's forum although I think he would also want the privilidge of posting the results at his site perhaps. You and JP Holding are going to have to work out the details).
As far as the word "extreme" I said I did not want to politicize the debate and I also said that one could use inductive logic to have moral certainty regarding the doctrine of Bible inerrancy in my discussion with Brian. I used the "moderation" paragraph previously to demonstrate that PaulK's assertions are not facts/opinions based on logical argumentation (for example, Paulk using such phrases as "most christians" and "well known" and "extreme" in order to attempt to support logical fallacies). Looking back, I believe I should have used something less satirical but I think I demonstrated my point. I did not mean to imply that Paulk based his every thought on pure emotion and took the middle position in every case in order to be accepted. I do think that there are many who do not use critical thinking in making their decisions and that is why many people are not successful in choosing stocks for example.
Let me elaborate on a point I made in the last paragraph. Many skeptics, though not all or necessarily Paulk, approach the whole debate between skeptics and Christians as if it were a "tabla rasa" debate that started just recently. I would submit there is a long pedigree of Bible statements being proved true and a long pedigree of skeptics assertions being overturned. I cited the comments of the John Barton and his co-editor in the recent Oxford Bible Commentary to support this claim ("chastened historical criticism") plus I gave other examples. If you want further elaboration of this fact I suggest the following link: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
(see the essay "The Bible: Tested, True, Triumphant")
I realize that some skeptics get upset that this trend is continueing and accuse me of "disrupting rooms" but I would argue that the skeptic/professed atheist/professed materialist apple cart is a very fragile and ill designed apple cart that often gets "disrupted". Many people in the yahoo chat room thought it was very humorous how obsessed some of the skeptics became when I upset their apple carts. I know that oni koneko damien and others became so upset they started recording transcripts of me that they reveal in partial snippets and railing at me with ad hominem arguments (damien became very incensed when I said there is no real empirical proof that atheism exist (people can lie, etc)and that there was no Foxes book of materialist martyrs [I never found any accounts of materialist martyrs]). I would say two things regarding their obsessive behavior. One is that I consider myself to be a beginner or lower/middle apologist who is just starting out. I would also say this that even a David can take down the arguments of materialists and their philosophical cousins because their arguments have no empirical or logical foundation and are by no means Goliaths. I realized this after debating in the yahoo atheist verus Christians debate room and by looking at better forums. I would also say that in the process of debating I learned that bring arguments like atheism has no empirical proof is not going to win you any friends. In short, I learned to pick my battles. I also learned to be more gracious in debates. I would submit to you that growing in the Christian faith and debating is a process. As far a growing in the Christian faith we can see this in Peter's life who lopped of the ear at arresting of Jesus or in the apostle John who wanted to call down fire on certain individuals.
I did rightly say that paulk was using a genetic logical fallacy and ad populum logical fallacy (see most christians comment). I also feel as though Paul is not completely addressing the links I gave. I absolutely realize that debate by links is strongly discouraged here but at least I did not cast out unsupported assertions (Noah, Canaan conquest) and offered some information. I realize that this is a debate forum but I would also say that even though I clearly stated from the start that I did not want to wrangle with professed atheist I was willing to engage more reasonable people such as Brian. I also feel as though I did explain how Bible innerrancy could be maintained - namely inductive logic (plus divine revelation doesn't hurt).
I have a good acquantance who calls himself an atheist (he defines an atheist as anyone who is not a practicer of a faith - especially the Christian faith. He said he is an atheist mainly do to disinterest in the whole issue). He said several months ago that wrangling with people on the internet is not that productive. He said that talking with people face to face is far more productive. He also said that there were old people in nursing homes who would love to be visited plus other people as well. I think my good acquantance is entirely correct in his comments. I have no problem with talking with people and answering their questions or providing resources that can answer their questions.
I also do realize that people like JP Holding and Glenn Miller provide a useful service in that Biblical study often requires specialized knowledege in Hebrew, Greek, semetic culture, history, science, etc. and that these gentleman have spent a lot of time researching the material in these various disciplines. I also realize that sometimes the experts have very little data to work with. Archeaology is great example of a small data pool although the pace of gathering data has quickend (Archeaologists still has a lot to do but I do think the results are encouraging for the believer. see: Archaeology and the Old Testament I also realize that archaeologist have their controversies regarding methodology and interpretation: Page not found - Apologetics Press
and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html However, I would also say that there is so much evidence for Christianity that it would be impossible for a person to read and/or discover it in a lifetime.
I have reflected on my current situation and my good acquantainces advice and have decided to no longer engage in wrangling with professed atheist. Once in a while, my good acquantance and I do get into heated discussions in a friendly way but at least we are not doing it over the internet and I can say I am taking his advice!
I have decided to post my resources in a webpage format for Christians so they can easily look for the data themselves and make an informed decision. This is my last new post message to the end of this particular strings forum. If I believe a certain specific Bible issue is not being adequately addressed by the web or in written material I may open another topic but I do not see this happening in the near future. Otherwise I believe the initial post I made should prove adequate. I do thank the EVCforum people for providing me the resources for listing the information I have listed on their website. I realize that given the breadth of this topic and my time contraints that it is not practical for me to continue. I still believe that inductive logic can be used to provide moral certainty in regards to Bible inerrancy but I also realize that skeptics can and do raise limitless objections which I do think fail under cross examination. I would also thank the moderators and administrators for enforcing rules of propriety in debate.
If some Christian is lead to continue the debate that is fine with me.
I realize that some skeptics will assert that I ran away from the debate but I would remind them from the very start I said I did not wish to wrangle/debate although I did not specify the reason why. Also, I would just say they remind me of the "black knight" (see http://www.tektonics.org/masoud01.html) So it is humorous if they consider that I ran away from a debate when I said from the start I had no wish to. In short, there is a profound difference between "Bible inerrancy is well supported" and "I will personally support Bible inerrancy exhaustively in this room" Given my time constraints, I would never and did not assert the latter. At best should I continue posting in this room I would only be able to offer links. But I would say this if a link versus link battle were to be allowed that Christianity would prevail because as I briefly alluded to the idea that when truth and untruth battle in a equal setting truth definitely has a strong tendency to prevail and it will always prevail in the long term.
As far as oni koneko damien, you can read my earlier comments in this post and I would say that you did imply that evcforum is a better forum to debate than yahoo atheist versus Christian debate room. With that in mind, I would say if you continue to debate atheism and profess atheism I would encourage you to open new debate topics here so people here could see you try to defend your professed views which I know are not defendable. I have already stated that I believe the yahoo room mentioned is a 3 ring circus and anyone can go there to see if what I maintain is true.
I gave the resources available in my first post so that Christians and others could see there were a lot of resources available. Each person is going to have decide for themselves if they choose to accept of reject the material.
Sincerely,
Ken DeMyer
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-19-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2004 9:52 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 61 (79081)
01-17-2004 3:46 PM


To: Brian
Dear Brian:
I did enjoy talking to you, but if you read the last post I have retired from this string (I stated my reasons why plus I responded to some of my critics and I clarified that post in a subsequent edit).
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 01-18-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by oni_koneko_damien, posted 01-17-2004 3:54 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
oni_koneko_damien
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 61 (79083)
01-17-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by kendemyer
01-17-2004 3:46 PM


Re: To: Brian
Did I not warn you of what this person was like? I was holding on to the vague hope that he would be honest and up front in this kind of forum, as chat does seem to bring out a darker side in most people.
While reading through his posts, I quickly noticed that he accused me of ad-hominum attacks. I was wondering if anyone else noticed me making such an attack. I know I pointed out certain characteristics of Ken, and noted several of his tactics. But this wasn't in an attempt to undermine his arguments, since he makes no real arguments, there is nothing to undermine. Rather, I simply wished to point out that he does, in fact, have a history of these kind of tactics.
I have noticed that Ken has already claimed he would leave several times, yet has posted again within a week. I very much doubt that this will be the last time he posts here.
-Damien

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by kendemyer, posted 01-17-2004 3:46 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 4:02 PM oni_koneko_damien has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 61 (79085)
01-17-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by oni_koneko_damien
01-17-2004 3:54 PM


Re: To: Brian
Well, Ken has said he doesn't intend to support what he says and is not going to respond and is going to leave.
That is better than a lot of drive by posters who think they can put a lot of unsupported assertions up and ignore the responses and leave when they find they have no support for their positions.
At least it is clear up front that Ken knows he can't support what he asserts. It is, after all, "for believers".

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by oni_koneko_damien, posted 01-17-2004 3:54 PM oni_koneko_damien has not replied

  
Newborn
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 61 (79091)
01-17-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by MrHambre
01-14-2004 5:22 PM


MrHambre.You cant be saved by believing in God neither by your good deeds .You cant buy your relantionship with God with money .That is impossible.The Bible is not just a book of good deeds.It is a big and complete story that talks about the fall of humankind and Gods great and long redemptions plan.The bible is the Godspell itself .A story to be true has to be ENTIRELY TRUE.So every verse of the Bible has to be true or the Godspell will be false.The veracity of the Godspell relies on the veracity of the entire bible.The bible is resumed in Jonh 3:16. If we dont believe in the entire Bible we are rejecting the value of the dead and ressurrection of Jesus Christ and thus we are not saved and the wrath of God remains over us(Because we have to believe Jonh 3:16 to be saved).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 01-14-2004 5:22 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by hitchy, posted 01-17-2004 5:26 PM Newborn has not replied
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 6:13 PM Newborn has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 57 of 61 (79103)
01-17-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Newborn
01-17-2004 4:30 PM


nuts to newborn!
let me get this straight--i have to believe every single part of the bible to be saved. from stoning a bad child or adultering wife to being expected to kill my firstborn and only child to crucifying my own intellect when Earth tells me that she is definitely older than around 4000 years or when my genome tells me that there were more than two people around at that same time to ad naseum. you have surrounded me and are asking me to surrender. here is my reply-------"NUTS"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Newborn, posted 01-17-2004 4:30 PM Newborn has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 61 (79118)
01-17-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Newborn
01-17-2004 4:30 PM


An atheist in disguise??
A story to be true has to be ENTIRELY TRUE.So every verse of the Bible has to be true or the Godspell will be false
If you wanted to do the work of the devil, if you wanted to destroy Christianity to it's bedrock you can do no better than to start with such a statement.
For those with eyes and a mind it is easy to see that some parts of the Bible, as interpreted by fundamentalist literalists, are simply wrong. You, insisting on throwing the baby out with the bath water by misrepresenting the real ideas of the Bible make it very vulnerable attack. An attack that is unanswerable through any kind of reasonable, logical and rational thinking.
What a totally stupid position to take.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Newborn, posted 01-17-2004 4:30 PM Newborn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-17-2004 9:19 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 01-23-2004 11:19 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 59 of 61 (79156)
01-17-2004 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
01-17-2004 6:13 PM


Re: An atheist in disguise??
You, ... by misrepresenting the real ideas of the Bible make it very vulnerable attack.
And what are these real ideas behind the Conquest narrative, for example? How do you know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 6:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 61 (79207)
01-18-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by kendemyer
01-17-2004 3:42 PM


Re: To: all and PaulK
Well I don't intend to challenge Turkel ("Holding"'s real name) to a debate, since a) I have no need to debate it at all and b) Turkel is known for his use of abuse and rhetoric. And for doing it behind the backs of those he chooses to attack.
More importantly your claim that I was using a "genetic error" is false as I have already pointed out. To be making a genetic error I would have to assume that the pages were in error based on their authorship - but I did not. In fact I stated only that I had OBSERVED errors in pages such as these and that other sources should also be consulted. To not do so shows not commitment to critical thinking - quite the opposite. Why not consult secular sites dealing with history on matters of history ?
Indeed the assumption that inerrantist sites are reliable because they are inerrantist would be a genuine genetic error. But this is very close to the view that Ken is promoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kendemyer, posted 01-17-2004 3:42 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024