Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

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. Just because you can make up other weird explanations for them, and they are pretty weird and strange and in fact impossible, doesn't change this fact. But again, I don't impute any of these things to the Bible.Geocentrism is something else. People think they see it in the Bible. I don't. I see the usual descriptions of heavenly motions from the point of view of human beings, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west and the sun traveling through the zodiac constellations and so on, but none of that is presented as a theory on the level of Copernicus and Galileo, it's just descriptive, referring to those things in the same way we do who know the scientific explanations. So if that's all that is used to say the Bible is scientifically geocentric it doesn't work. Again, I don't find "flood geology" in the Bible. And I'm sure you are as sincere as I am when you speak of the sun rising in the east but neither of us thinks of that as science and there is no reason to think the Bible is speaking scientifically either when it describes things that way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.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.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will magically come true some day.You're not familiar with the content of the Bible? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's already true, the problem is the willful blindness of so-called "science."

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.

Your aversion to clarity of communication is not only noted but notorious by now.

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.

Yes it is too much to ask. It's your job to make your case. And besides I'm not the only one you are supposedly making your case to so you need to quote the verses you are referring to for them anyway.

quote:

---

Your brand of fundamentalism is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time

---

For the most part, the Pharisees were simply attempting to properly interpret the "Law of Moses" (the 5 books of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy).Look at the Pharisee documents.The Talmudic writings have Jewish Christians (quoted as saying) saying that daughters have the same inheritance rights as sons. (I assume that was something the Jewish Christians actually said, but who knows?)I suppose it was simply a "spiritual law", according to Christians, or what?The Talmudic writings have Jewish Christians saying that the Law of Moses was abolished and replaced by the (written?) Gospel. Though the same writings say that there was some opportunistic double talk, and (what we now know as) "Matthew 5:17-18" was invoked.However.The Pharisees did have the Oral Law, which might be taken as something of a Jewish New Testament (though it was said to have been handed down at Sinai during the time of Moses, and frankly the oral laws were much more complementary and clarifying than selective and deceptive).Conclusion:Once can wonder how different the Pharisee's approach was from the Jewish Christians (whatever their written Gospel said exactly), but I would not smear the Pharisees by comparing them to modern Christians.

There was talk earlier about true science verse philosophy and whether scripture was factored into the older Christian interpretations.

quote:

---

R.C. Sproul

​

Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.

​

And so I think that we can learn from nonbelieving scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation. So I have a high view of natural revelation is what I’m saying.

---

Then, in Table Talk, June 4, 1539, Luther said:

quote:

---

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].

---

Luther's Lectures on Genesis had these quotes:

quote:

---

Indeed, it is more likely that the bodies of the stars, like that of the sun, are round, and that they are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night, each according to its endowment and its creation.

​

....

​

We Christians must be different from the philosophers [i.e. scientists] in the way we think about the causes of these things. And if some are beyond our comprehension (like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens), we must believe them and admit our lack of knowledge rather than either wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

---

Here is a Christian website showing us John Calvin's words.

quote:

---

there is a statement he made in a sermon on 1 Corinthians that is relevant. There, Calvin warns against those who say, that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves.viii He describes those who hold this view as stark raving mad and as possessed by the devil.ix It is not clear that he is basing this warning on his interpretation of any particular passage of Scripture, and there is ongoing debate about how this statement coincides with Calvin’s other statements regarding general and special revelation, but the statement does at the very least indicate that geocentricity was firmly established in Calvin’s mind as the true explanation of the nature of God’s creation.

​

Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

---

quotes were found by typing this into a search engine:john calvin earth sun philospohers

The point was simply that the Pharisees believed that God would return and look after them if they followed the myriad of laws that they had come up with.I'm suggesting that Christians such as Faith seem to believe that if people believe the right doctrine that they get eternal life.In both cases it is about trying to control God by either legalistically following laws or legalistically believing a specific doctrine.

Ok, So KJV it is. Perhaps you should argue then that the KJV Inerrancy stands against all objections.For what I think is a harder challenge than the one I proposed to you before, let’s look now at the two versions of Judas’s death:

quote:

---

MT 27:3-8 (KJV). 3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

​

AC 1:16-19 (KJV). 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

---

I went through an article from Answers in Genesis where they offer explanations to supposed contradictions. The way they tried to get away with the contradiction is that Judas hanged himself, then his body decayed with time and eventually the tree branch or the rope gave in and broke off. Judas’s body fell down, burst open on impact and the entrails spilled out. They explain that the process of decaying would have taken the body to a point where it would have easily burst open on impact; which would not happen to a body that had just died or to someone dying from the fall. One may bend over backwards big time and give this far-fetched explanation the benefit of the doubt, but they are completely ignoring other contradictions present in the stories:

I really don’t see how this contradiction could be explained away. In the article I mentioned from Answers in Genesis, the author speaks volumes of their bias when they start with this statement:

quote:

---

Since the Bible is inerrant Judas cannot have died by hanging and died by falling and bursting open. Rather, they are two different viewpoints of the same event.

---

What do you make of this, Faith. Can you do a better job than them at explaining away this contradiction?

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.

Are those the fossils you admitted you were unable to explain in terms of flood geology?Then they are not obvious evidence for the flood.Nor are the strata of course, but at least you think you can account for them in terms of the flood. With the fossil record you admitted you can't, so how can you possibly say they're evidence for it?