Summations Only

quote:

---

It remains a fact that if God inspired the writers the writing has no errors and should be taken as God's own communication.

---

That's not a fact. God doesn't have to do things the way you want. God can let the writers make errors if he chooses not to prevent it. Doesn't the fact that not one book of the Bible presents itself as a direct communication from God count for something ? Isn't it a good reason to think that the Bible is largely a human creation and fallible ?

It's not logic, it's just your opinion. And one which has very dubious grounds.

Indeed. Since it is a clear fact that the Bible is not inerrant you must be wrong about something. Either the Bible is not inspired - at least in part, or your notion of inspiration is incorrect.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

You forget that Faith's judgement of other views is less than rational. Or honest.

quote:

---

No, dumkopf. The Bible describes supernatural events in the context of history, which is what makes it evidence-based.

---

No, it makes it like other ancient writings, and no more evidence-based. Especially when the "history" is myth or legend, and all of Genesis comfortably fits into those categories.

quote:

---

The Bible isn't ALL history, but the parts that are history are intended to be evidence of God through His doings in the world.

---

They certainly aren't good evidence for that. Not least because they aren't very trustworthy as historical documents - even the better parts like the Books of Kings.

The Creation stories, the Flood, Babel are all obviously mythical. But if you think other ancient writings only feature the Gods in myths you are mistaken.To give just one example, isn't the siege of Troy at least as historical as Joshua's invasion? Doesn't the Iliad contain genuine information about the times it concerns (e.g. The use of boars-tusk helmets)