Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

The Chicago Statement was written in 1978. To call it evidence of the intent of the actual authors of the Bible is nonsense. As indeed is the idea that inerrant was intended from the beginning. It is nothing more than a statement of belief from a selection of 20th Century church leaders whose churches represented only a fraction of the Christian population.If your ideas about the writing of the Bible were correct Jeremiah would have to know that he was contradicting Deuteronomy. (Deuteronomy itself was almost certainly written later, so he may not have)The author of Luke surely knew that his version of the Oliver Discourse differed from that found in Mark (there are significant disagreements between Luke/Acts and Matthew but nobody knows if the author of Luke knew of Matthew). Though we can surely say that the author of Luke would not have regarded MatthewBiblical Inerrancy is a false dogma. In the minds who cling to it, it may stand against all challenges - even the truth. But that is all. A falsehood remains false no matter how many people insist on believing it even after it is shown to be false.

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.

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:

quote:

---

No idea who James McGrath is and your quote is sheer gobbledygook.

---

He’s a quite well-known Christian writer. Probably why you haven’t heard of him. And the quote is fine. If you can’t understand it - despite having the intelligence - it’s probably just your prejudice kicking in again.

quote:

---

You are blathering on about stuff you don't bother to demonstrate so I have no reason to take any of it seriously

---

And yet you have not demonstrated anything. You certainly have not demonstrated that Biblical Inerrancy goes back to the beginning - obviously a document a mere forty years old can’t do that. You haven’t demonstrated that Biblical contradictions are easily dealt with or trivial either.I, on the other hand have made points supporting my claim even if I have not cited the relevant verses yet. And yet somehow my posts should be dismissed while yours should not ?

The NIV is known for covering up contradictions.Funny how that would happen to a book supposedly without contradictions.

quote:

---

Actually it's based on the historical understanding of inerrancy whether that sits well with your personal judgment or not.

---

Then why is your evidence of this historical understsnding the Chicago Statement itself? Choosing that document as your only evidence hardly gives us any reason to believe that the doctrine is an awful lot older.

quote:

---

And the men who put it together are leaders of evangelicalism whether that sits well with your judgment or not.

---

I don’t mind. Evangelicals ought to, but that’s their problem.

quote:

---

OK, true, they point for instance to the Grand Canyon and that got me looking at the Grand Canyon. You are right. But I don't claim the Bible says anything about the Grand Canyon or geology at all, it's just that if the Flood happened it's very likely to have left evidence and the strata and fossils are awfully good evidence for a worldwide Flood. To deny this is just nuts

---

To say that the strata and the fossils are awfully good evidence for a worldwide Flood is nuts. It’s not even what you would expect at the superficial level you look at it, and of course it runs into much worse problems if you go into more detail. As you know,That’s just a crazy belief you cling to because there is no real evidence that a worldwide Flood occurred. That is WHY science rejects a worldwide Flood. Science never set out to prove that there wasn’t one, but the evidence showed that there wasn’t.

quote:

---

Geocentrism is something else. People think they see it in the Bible. I don't.

---

It’s pretty easy to see in Genesis 1. The most obvious verses are 14-17 but verses 6-8 are relevant and include context.

quote:

---

No, it is not evidence but only commitment to OE theory that blinds science to the obvious evidence for the Flood in strata and fossils.

---

You know perfectly well that you are the one ignoring evidence.

quote:

---

And your habit of making brief cryptic references as arguments is not acceptable. If you want to make a case for geocentrism in the Bible you are going to have to quote it. I am not going to look up your verse references.

---

Your aversion to reading the Bible is noted.

All you have to do is read and understand a few verses. Is that so difficult?Perhaps it is since remembering past discussions about your evidence for the Flood seems to be beyond you.

I understand that reading the Bible is a horrible chore for you. At least we know why you don’t find the evidence of geocentrism - you don’t look.To set the context (KJV) Already you should be seeing that this is a little problematic for anyone with an understanding of our Solar System. God divides the primordial ocean with a solid barrier which is called Heaven. The Earth corresponds to the part beneath the barrier.There is no concept of the Earth as a planet here, let alone one of several. And here we see that the Sun, Moon and stars are just lights in the barrier that covers the Earth, and holds back the water. No suggestion of the Sun as the centre at all - everything goes around the Earth.

quote:

---

None of that reflects anything scientific at all, not geocentrism or any other scientific ism.

---

Well, that’s a creative attempt at semantic legerdemain. Of course since the Bible is thoroughly pre-scientific there is no science in there.Unfortunately for you I know that geocentrism is NOT a term restricted to science. It is a term that can quite rightly be applied to ancient cosmologies. And Genesis 1 reflects the geocentric cosmologies of the Ancient Near East, as Captain Stormfield correctly pointed out. Those cosmologies were based on the limited knowledge of the time and were, as a consequence in error.Thus Genesis 1 is geocentric and in error.

quote:

---

I have no reason not to take it as simply descriptive of the order of Creation in ancient terminology.

---

The order - what little is in the cited verses - was not the point or I would have quoted far more to make the order plain. The point is what was created and where - and how it shows that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is geocentric (geocentricity was the whole point - have you forgotten that ?)As for evidence, you can start with this article from the website of a. Christian institution: Teaches or assumesThe more complex but similar Babylonian system is described - and depicted - hereNote that here, as in Genesis, we have a flat watery realm with domed heavens above it (see the blue diagram towards the end of the section on Egyptian/Mesopotamia Cosmology)Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

quote:

---

Different accounts of unimportant events don't affect inerrancy. As the Statement says (you should read it) precision is not expected.

---

Presumably you mean However unless you are going to say that Peter’s account of Judas’ death was false (which itself raises serious questions) it does not seem to be covered.Let us also note that there are significant discrepancies in the Nativity stories, the genealogies of Jesus and - quite damningly - the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. To name just three examples from the Gospels and Acts.