Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

This topic is in the Bible Inerrancy Forum and yet no case has been made to this point to scripturally support the basic premise. I am unimpressed with some of the replies and attitudes towards other EvC members thus far and am also unimpressed with the basic argument. It is nothing more than an individual member being allowed to rant against everyone else and get away with it so far.I am not going to tolerate it. Either make a case with scripture for or against Biblical Inerrancy or this topic will be shut down.

Plenty of people saw Geocentrism in the Bible, and they used the same exact arguments you are using for a young Earth. We might as well throw a Flat Earth into the mix as well.Let's say I have a text that I claim is inerrant because it came from a deity. My interpretation of that text leads me to believe that it unequivocally states that the Earth is flat. Wouldn't you conclude that the text I have is in error and was therefore not written by a deity? If so, do you understand the problems that YEC poses for biblical inerrancy?

If you or anyone want to prove that Geocentrism is biblical, please produce the scripture you think says so. I don't see any myself.

You have steadfastly resisted learning anything that contradicts your ignorant fantasies.That's why people criticize you.

I don't get your point. I don't see geocentrism or a flat earth in the Bible and hypothesizing that some other religion might support such ideas doesn't seem relevant. YEC poses a problem only because of the false science of the ToE and OE. THEY are the problem, not YEC.

People criticize me because I disagree with the status quo.

Play NiceEdited by AdminPhat, : reopening thread

Discussing about the two versions of Paul’s conversion Let’s have a look at the verses themselves:First, look at the NIV version:

quote:

---

AC 9:7 (NIV). The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
AC 22:9 (NIV). My companions saw the light, but did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

---

If we try to make a single verse out of these two, we could arrive at something like this:

quote:

---

The men traveling with Saul stood speechless; they heard the voice but did not understand it. They saw the light but did not see anyone.

---

At least when it comes to NIV I can’t really say it is contradictory. Now let’s look at the NKJV:

quote:

---

AC 9:7 (NKJV). And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
AC 22:9 (NKJV). And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.

---

A single verse out of those would look something like this:

quote:

---

And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to Paul. They saw the light and were afraid but did not see anyone.

---

Does it mean they heard some other voice but not that of Jesus? If that is the case I do note that while in the NIV version they hear Jesus's voice and don't understand it, in NKJV they don't hear it at all.It is rather ambiguous, but I guess is not the best verse to argue for biblical contradictions. But there are other verses that I will present to you to argue against your idea that the Bible is inerrant. But before that I want to ask you if there’s any particular version of the Bible that you hold as inerrant or any version will do for you to support your case.Edited by Paboss, : No reason given.

KJV.

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

The Chicago Statement of Faith begins with willfull dishonesty and depends on the willful ignorance of the audience.The very first paragraph sets the argument and makes it clear that it is based on the total denial of reality and factual evidence and instead is totally dependent on the dogma of the Cult.

quote:

---

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

---

It is a position based not just on dishonesty and ignorance but rather on an active and willful adoption of dishonesty and ignorance and a basic life choice.

Actually it's based on the historical understanding of inerrancy whether that sits well with your personal judgment or not. And the men who put it together are leaders of evangelicalism whether that sits well with your judgment or not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Yet you provide no evidence that was actually true and even if it were true that would not change the fact that it begins with an assertion that the base is a willful denial of reality and honesty. Correct, it was put together a covin of "True Believers" and "Fellow Travelers". That does not change the fact that it begins with an assertion that the base is a willful denial of reality and honesty.

But your position was invented by a bunch of YECs and is nowhere to be found in the Bible, is my point. Yet you refer to your position as the Biblical position and think you're defending the Bible rather than the people who invented and promulgated your beliefs about geology; and you are apparently sincere in doing so. Why not admit the same sincerity in geocentrists? --- especially as it is much easier to find geocentrism in the Bible than "flood geology".