|
Author
|
Topic: Because The Bible Tells Me So
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
Message 92 of 111 (824582)
11-30-2017 5:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
11-30-2017 11:27 AM
|
|
Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Phat writes:
I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it. Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so.
Here is a copy with explanation by Norman Geisler, which may help explain how they arrive at some of their positions. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:27 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 95 of 111 (824607)
12-01-2017 7:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
12-01-2017 3:11 AM
|
|
Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Phat writes:
In a way, they have collectively pardoned scripture itself from criticism.
I don't think so. Your quote basically says that we should try to interpret the writings as the original authors and audience would have understood them. It seems to me that this is the only honest way to do it. Otherwise we are reading ancient writings anachronistically and making the authors say things that they never meant.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:11 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 96 of 111 (824608)
12-01-2017 7:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
12-01-2017 3:22 AM
|
|
Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes: They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture.
How so? It seems the opposite to me. Inerrantists accept the authority of all of Scripture, whereas non-inerrantists set themselves up as an authority over Scripture, deciding which parts are true and which are not.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:22 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 105 of 111 (824646)
12-01-2017 3:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
12-01-2017 8:08 AM
|
|
Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:
And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isn’t something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.
Sometimes it IS something that they make up. Scripture must be interpreted. It says nothing on its own, apart from interpretation. Often biblical critics interpret Scripture very naively and anachronistically (Richard Dawkins is a prime example), making it say things that the original authors never intended.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 8:08 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:29 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 107 of 111 (824653)
12-01-2017 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
12-01-2017 3:29 PM
|
|
Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
PaulK writes:
I’m also aware that more than once you’ve baselessly accused people of making anachronistic readings.
I may not have been able to convince you that such allegations were true. And they may in fact have been false. But this does not mean that they were BASELESS; I had good reasons for them.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 3:29 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 4:23 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2