In answering the rest of your post I want to begin by responding to your last statement since it repeats your original error:
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning.
Sure, the beginning of the 20th century.
Which is a restatement of your mistaken equation of Bible inerrancy with a particular theological movement called Fundamentalism, which I hope I cleared up in my first answer to you. Biblical inerrancy is standard doctrine that goes back to the beginning according to the Chicago Statement. It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism. You could say that it of course belongs to "fundamentalist" or traditional Bible-believing Christianity which is what that movement aimed to spell out in opposition to modernism and liberalism in the 19th century, but that too goes back to the beginning. I do hope this is now clear to you.
True science is a gift from God.
Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights.
He gives it for the sake of the whole nation and He gives it because of our former Christian identity, and the first western scientists were serious Christians.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada.
Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity.
Uh huh, well I was answering GDR's statement that we should appreciate science for what it has given us to improve our lives, and of course objecting that only the true sciences have given us anything to improve our lives, that the ToE and OE give us zip in that department. And of course I am happy to go on and affirm that they haven't even given us true knowledge of any sort, it's all a big shuck.
As for your comments on Augustine as usual you are tiresome in your amazing ability to get everything wrong. Of course we are "rewarded according to our works." Scripture says that. It does not say we are SAVED by our works, but over and over exactly the opposite and Augustine affirms that too, which became important in Luther's theology of salvation by grace.
St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations....
Indeed he has. He contributed some extremely important stuff to our current theology. BUT he also WAS all over the place on some subjects, ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point.
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,...
Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves.
You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations.
God's inspired revelation is not subject to scientific method.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture.
That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten).
The statement on Biblical Inerrancy DECLARES it against all objections. We are not subjecting it to scientific proof, we declare it based on its internal witness to being the Word of God, and all the statements in that document follow this pattern of validation. Nobody expects YOU to accept that, but that is what it is saying to us believers. You really might try a little harder to understand what people you disagree with are actually arguing instead of imposing your own opinions on it.
Percy writes:
GDR writes:
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.
Faith writes:
Not according to my theology.
But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind.
It wouldn't be in my mind unless I knew it was shared with evangelicals in general.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I.
So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good?
The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly. Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges. They didn't have guns so they couldn't do an execution by firing squad. They didn't have our modern means of putting people to death in an electric chair or by other supposedly painless means. I doubt they could have constructed an effective guillotine in those days. What would you have had them do?
And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it.
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all.
That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote:
Here's the actual condemnation of Galileo.
Note how it says "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture", and "the said opinion [...] can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture" and "it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held" and so on.
Golly gosh, you think I'm overlooking that? No I am disagreeing with it. I don't know if they were imposing their love of Aristotle and Ptolemy on the scriptures or just misreading them, but there is nothing in the actual scripture itself that supports geocentrism. I did check out the verses referred to that supposedly support that idea and they don't.
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information.
That is readily apparent.
Not to Dr. A who accused me of thinking I was defending the Bible when I was really defending Morris. It really would help if you'd consider the context before you answer. If it's so apparent to you funny it isn't to Dr. A. Anyway, my observations ARE original and the way you've dealt with them in past discussions shows an amazing inability to follow the argument on that subject as well as everything else.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2