Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

Biblical Inerrancy is standard accepted dogma, and this statement was signed by some of the biggest names in evangelicalism. Out of this list of fourteen, I'm familiar with all but five, which I've put in parentheses. For an average believer like me to be familiar with that many names on the list means those are really big names, and if they signed this document that makes it pretty authoritative.If they don't see contradictions where you see them, guess what, they're right, you're wrong.All the supposed contradictions are trivial, anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Biblical Inerrancy is standard accepted dogma, and this statement was signed by some of the biggest names in evangelicalism.

---

Well, that’s just too bad for evangelicalism then.

quote:

---

Out of this list of fourteen, I'm familiar with all but five, which I've put in parentheses. For an average believer like me to be familiar with that many names on the list means those are really big names, and if they signed this document that makes it pretty authoritative.

---

I also recognise some of the names, and I’d say they make it pretty worthless. I wouldn’t trust anything written by Montgomery or Geisler or Sproul without checking it first. And I already know that Biblical Inerrancy is false anyway.

quote:

---

If they don't see contradictions where you see them, guess what, they're right, you're wrong.

---

Guess what, they’re wrong and I’m right. They are at best blind with bias if not actively dishonest. As I said, they can’t be trusted.

I've never been very interested in trying to resolve all the supposed discrepancies. Most of them are usually resolved easily enough as just one writer's particular focus differing from the others' and those that can't be so easily resolved are unimportant anyway. What makes the Bible most importantly inerrant is the main themes, the continuity from one book to another down the centuries that build up the overall revelation. I have no respect whatever for those who object to the traditional order and interpretation, so I just ignore all your stuff along those lines.The point of presenting this document on biblical inerrancy was to answer GDR and dwise who seem to treat it as something creationists made up. It's not, it's established doctrine and creation science has to adhere to it same as other Christian enterprises have to. Picking it apart doesn't change any of that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All from the comfort of your armchair with none of the inconvenience of obtaining any qualifications in the subject, reading any real research or getting your hands dirty on any rocks.The reult is that you spout nonsense about stuff you don't understand.

Cross sections give a lot of amazing information that couldn't be acquired in the field anyway.

Well, yeah, it's pretty easy to "stand against all objections" if you declare all objections inadmissible at the outset. That's setting the bar pretty low.

Field work gives a lot of amazing and critical information that couldn't be acquired from cross sections. Far more information than is available in cross sections. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've never been very interested in trying to resolve all the supposed discrepancies. Most of them are usually resolved easily enough as just one writer's particular focus differing from the others' and those that can't be so easily resolved are unimportant anyway

---

I’d say that the difference between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy is pretty important. If Deuteronomy is right, Jonah is a false prophet and you have to wonder about Jeremiah. If Jeremiah is correct the Law Of Deuteronomy is wrong on an important issue.Even the existence of serious discrepancies between the Gospels (including Acts as a continuation of Luke) are important in that they show that the Gospels are not historically reliable.Even the different teaching on divorce between Matthew and Mark is important to a man who has a divorce for adultery.

quote:

---

What makes the Bible most importantly inerrant is the main themes, the continuity from one book to another down the centuries that build up the overall revelation.

---

There are some pretty big discontinuities in there. Christianity is - to use one of your favourite words - quite thoroughly revisionist.

quote:

---

The point of presenting this document on biblical inerrancy was to answer GDR and dwise who seem to treat it as something creationists made up. It's not, it's established doctrine and creation science has to adhere to it same as other Christian enterprises have to. Picking it apart doesn't change any of that.

---

Picking a document written only 40 years ago is hardly a good way to show that the doctrine is really old (it may be less than 200 years old). More to the point why would Christians have to put any dogma above the Bible ? Answer me that.

But he hits the nail on the head here:

Your comment was that your belief on inerrancy was there from the beginning and yet you discount Augustine who rather predates your 40 year old document. I’ve also shown you where Jesus didn’t believe in an inerrant scripture either but of course He was wrong because He doesn’t agree with you. Incidentally that doesn’t mean that he didn’t take the Scriptures seriously. In all likelihood He had them memorized. So you found some guys that agree with you which of automatically makes them authorities. Yes, He expanded on them but it does not negate the fact that he corrected what was wrong in the OT. In this case He clearly says that it was Moses who gave that commandment - not God.
Once again you make a false idol out of an inerrant Bible, putting the Bible ahead of Jesus. So genocide and public stoning for minor offences are good things. Stoning to death a poor smuck for picking up some fire wood on the Sabbath is an act of justice.
Forget the slaughter of the Canaanites for now. How about the Midianites where we can see this act of justice from Numbers 31.

quote:

---

17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

---

Your understanding of God allows for the women to be taken for the purposes of the men. Whatever can that Mean? Not much of a feminist are you.
Your brand of fundamentalism is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. They believed that if they kept all of the myriad of laws they had come up with, that God would do all that they hoped He would do. (Defeat their enemies etc. )
The Pharisees made the following of the laws they had come up with the path to Yahweh. You make the belief in the dogma that you hold to be the path to God. You have turned faith into Salvation by works, and you don’t even have to do any work. You just have to believe the right stuff and you have instant salvation. It is totally foreign to what Jesus taught and lived, and it isn’t even scriptural. You turn a God of love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy into a small little petulant deity.

Just as you are currently using bad biblical theology, and it is made worse by your adherence to young Earth creationists.

Then why do you use an interpretation of the Bible that is shown to be false by all of the evidence science has found? If the Bible is inerrant then a young Earth has to be false just as Geocentrism has to be false.

First, I don't know if those signers find the Young Earth in scripture, it isn't mentioned in the document. I think it's pretty inescapable myself but I don't want to impose that on them. My own view is that it is there and that means the Old Earth is simply wrong. The document merely says that wherever there is conflict with science the Bible is right and will eventually be shown to be right.I don't see geocentrism in the Bible though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the document that says inerrancy goes back to the beginning, I don't know who they are referring to but Augustine IS known for his many different opinions even on the same subject throughout his lengthy career and voluminous writings. You did not show Jesus denying an inerrant Bible. He quoted from every book in the OT as authoritative. He wrote them, why wouldn't He know them from memory? I learned what I believe from them among other teachers, they were authoritative before I came along. He says it was Moses who SOFTENED the commandment because of their hard hearts, he gave no commandment himself. There is no way to put the Bible ahead of Jesus since as God He wrote it and all its words are His words. Nobody was stoned for a minor offense, you just have no appreciation of the seriousness of the crime so punished. You also have no appreciation of the magnitude of the sins that had accumulated for centuries before God judged a people by wiping them out. Absolutely it is. Doing any work on the Sabbath would have been an extreme violation of an extremely important commandment, which any "poor schmuck" would have known well, so that to violate it was a direct intentional affront to God and an example for rebellion to the rest of the people. You read out of context. The Midianite women had seduced Israelite men in the past into fornication and idolatry and to include them in the nation would have exposed the Israelites to further sins. Here's one commentary on the incident:

quote:

---

b. Keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately: Therefore, all the women who had known a man intimately were to be killed. But ones who had not been connected with the immorality and idolatry of the Midianites could be kept alive.

​

c. Every male among the little ones: These also had to be killed. This was harsh, but done with the understanding that in that ancient culture, the boys would have grown into men with the solemn responsibility to avenge their father's death and to perpetuate Midianite culture - which in itself was anti-God.
  —Guzik

---

I've learned from the best over the years. don't think I'll even answer such a perverse statement. I think I'll leave it to the LORD to straighten you out eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No doubt, but it's different information.