Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists

But wasn't God's Word actually written by fallible men? And isn't the Bible therefore fallible?Aren't your interpretations of the Bible the interpretations of fallible men?In order to demonstrate the infallibility of the Bible, I think you'd have to do something along these lines:

• Provide evidence that God exists.
• Provide evidence that God is infallible.
• Provide evidence that men inspired by God produce infallible texts.
• Provide evidence that the Biblical authors were inspired by God at the time they wrote.
• Provide evidence that the fallible Biblical interpretations of men can somehow approach infallibility.

This is impossible, of course, but I'm really only making the point that belief in an infallible Bible is a matter of faith, not evidence, and that you really accept an infallible Bible out of faith, and not because you've been provided evidence.--Percy

Okay, but you might want to consider Matthew 4:7 before you jump: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. --Percy

I don't have a list of your contentions before me, but your actions are one of using your faith in the inerrancy of your interpretation of the Bible to deny the evidence of the natural world, which is also an expression of God's word, by the way, and even more literally inerrant. How is this any different than someone saying to you, "I'm inspired by God, what I say is inerrant."--Percy

Science long ago demonstrated your interpretation wrong, but you didn't change it. Your interpretation of Genesis is that it is a literally true account, and you will not change your interpretation even though there is no supporting evidence and much contrary evidence. While I understand you don't really believe your interpretation is inerrant, your position really boils down to, "I may be wrong, but I'm not," even though all the evidence points to Genesis being an allegorical myth.All I was saying was that when it comes to making a choice, you choose your interpretation of the Bible over the evidence from the natural world. Again, this is your interpretation and something you believe on faith, but you have no supporting evidence. The facts say Genesis is allegory and the universe is ancient. And anyway, Genesis says God created the universe before sin existed. But I grant you've introduced a new twist. Perhaps your believe that sin or the devil or something similar caused Noah's flood to leave behind the appearance of an ancient earth. No sins or contradictions in the Bible? I don't think so. It contains many internal and external contradictions, and it describes all manner of sins. You simply deny they exist. And you have no evidenc, only your faith, for believing sin can affect everything in the universe except the Bible.Even further, if you put the person to the test and found him lacking he would simply take the same approach you do with the Bible by inventing all manner of apologetics to explain the errors and contradictions.The Bible was written by men, not commonly believed to be inerrant. That they were inspired at the time they wrote is based upon the testimony of men. That men inspired by God produce inerrant text is not supported by any evidence. These are all things you accept on faith. My original point remains: your rejection of objective evidence is based upon faith, not evidence.--Percy

Hi Desdemona, Good advice! Keep in mind that all you know of God and Jesus, including the Bible itself, came from men.--Percy

You didn't correct BobAliceEve's presumption that your user ID is Othellian. I was assuming it sprang from some other source, since Shakespeare spelled it Desdemona. If you need to modify your user ID, you can do it on your profile page.--Percy

Your free association approach to discussion is entertaining, but it causes you to drift off topic. Funkman originally said in Message 6: The response I made was that the Bible was written by very fallible men.--Percy

As Coragyps has already mentioned, from calculations based upon the rate at which the earth could cool from a molten state, Lord Kelvin believed the earth and solar system could be no more than 20 million years old, so long as there was no additional source of heat within the earth. Any additional heat sources would mean the earth was much older, just as the geologists and biologists were insisting must be the case. And Kelvin lived long enough to be in the audience when Ernst Rutherford announced that they had found that source of heat: radioactivity.And of course, Lord Kelvin was not a "Bible believing Creationist."Someone is giving you misinformation.--Percy

You once again have not addressed yourself to the topic. Funkman originally said in Message 6: The response I made was that the Bible was written by very fallible men. All men are fallible, in case that wasn't clear. Your response must address itself to how an infallible text could be produced by fallible people.--Percy