Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Inerrancy of the Bible
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 301 (178463)
01-19-2005 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by AdminPhat
01-19-2005 2:21 AM


Re: Topic, Tom...Topic!
Noble attempt Tom on holding off the hoards. I find it funny that guys quoting the Simpsons and throwing in references to comic books are questioning your intelligence. 36 Christians, I'm not sure yet that I'd back the inerrancy of any English version of the Bible, but on the other hand I'm reading some really stupid statements from these "anti-Creationists so I felt I had to jump in.
1) Both the Josephus and N.T. accounts are 2000 years old (for the Noah's age guy this statement is what we would call "an approximation). What gives Josephus any more credibility than the Bible? Is it because he is the more secular source of the two? By the looks of things, this encyclopedia you guys keep quoting seems to think he's "questionable" and "contradictory" which would imply that he's not exactly the best resource to base your arguments on.
His history of the Great Jewish Revolt, though questionable, contradictory or self-serving in many places, is an important source of information for the events of that time. Nevertheless, his personal conduct during the war is a point of contention because he abandoned his position as a rebel officer and joined the Roman camp.
Josephus - Wikipedia
2) NosyNed. You have over 32 pages of topic posts... Impressive. I will try to spend my entire life in internet forums too Seriously though, you should know enough to take your scientific dating ideas to another post. This topic isn't about scientific dating; it's about the KJV's inerrancy. Seeing how all age estimates of the Earth are nothing more than educated guesses, your implication that this is a potential error is a null issue. By the way, there's a reward out for the first piece of evidence that "we evolved," I'm surprised you haven't claimed it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AdminPhat, posted 01-19-2005 2:21 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Incognito, posted 01-19-2005 5:41 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 249 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2005 5:48 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 301 (178464)
01-19-2005 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Incognito
01-19-2005 5:41 AM


Re: Topic, Tom...Topic!
3) Gold-melting boy. If you are going to start questioning the boiling point of gold, you'd have to then question how a burning bush talks, staffs turn to snakes, and Jesus is raised from the dead. BTW, if you don't believe in miracles, how'd you get here? Don’t tell me: It was through the Miraculous one-time mixing of amino acids in a Miraculously never again reproduced chemical mix... I guess it seems none of us can escape the unexplainable can we? This also doesn't prove/disprove the inerrancy of KJV, it just proves/disproves what you believe in...
4) 2-4 B.C. hang-up guy. So let me get this straight: If a linked article states: "Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 BC or 4 BC." And it also states "Accordingly, Herod's death occurred in 2 BC or 1 BC." This somehow shows the Biblical version is wrong? In case you didn't read the article - it clearly implies there is no consensus on this issue (which by the way, doesn't make it an KJV error).
5) 40,000 vs. 4,000 stalls. I suggest you dissenting folks go back and read the word, "of." Once you've read the word "of," try and use it in a sentence. Then, after using it in a sentence, go back to 1 Kings 4:26 - And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots. Just in case Noah's age disputing guy doesn't understand syntax: Using the word "of" in this sentence implies that the 40,000 stalls of horses are for his chariots mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Incognito, posted 01-19-2005 5:41 AM Incognito has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Incognito, posted 01-19-2005 5:42 AM Incognito has not replied
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2005 5:55 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 01-19-2005 7:57 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 273 by sidelined, posted 01-19-2005 10:19 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 301 (178465)
01-19-2005 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Incognito
01-19-2005 5:41 AM


Re: Topic, Tom...Topic!
6) Star/Jupiter folks. Seeing as most everything else in astronomy is a theory at best, how does this prove/disprove anything again? Seeing as you can't even agree as to which date the star/Jupiter phenomenon happened on - how could you even begin to prove/disprove that something occurred? Let's turn your argument around: I have an account of an astronomical discrepancy in the Bible, prove to me it didn't happen. Ever think that maybe this is another example of a miracle (kind of like your old-age evolutionary origins that conveniently are missing a starting point and "links")?
7) Beetle Juice. The only error in the translation of things with 4 crawling legs and 2 jumping legs is your interpretation. Not reading all of verses 20-23 the first time doesn’t make you stupid, on the other hand, not admitting your own error... By the way, beetles are not the same the world over, maybe there actually was a beetle with "jumping legs" back in the day... Heck, you probably believe 80-ton dinos turned to 6-ounce birds, using your logic, some beetles probably had jumping legs, kind of like the flea beetle, which apparently is real and also jumps
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/pub811/8flea.htm
8) Somebody already answered the Lucifer folks (the same academics who question if the ancient Hebrews believed in Satan even though he’s a main character in Genesis and Job).
9) Non-KJV crowd: Your errors would be a little more of a challenge if you read entire verses/chapters looking for context before you throw them out there.
10) **SNORKSNORK** err *cough, ahem* Nuff said about this guy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Incognito, posted 01-19-2005 5:41 AM Incognito has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 9:19 AM Incognito has replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 301 (178473)
01-19-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 1:07 AM


Good job arguing semantics there. Here's a thought... Does "above" mean where the leg is attached to the body? Or does "above" mean the leg with the highest point? If you want to start arguing modern anatomical planes/reference points I suggest you find a different thread...
And this concept also goes for that other guy arguing that an older text is in error because the modern vocabulary changed. Changing cultural understandings don’t put texts in error — it's readers who don’t understand cultural/historical context while reading the texts who put themselves in error. Just because you can’t understand a word, it doesn’t make it an error In case you can’t remember, these kids are not arguing what the most modern or "easiest to read" Bible is, they are arguing that this translation is the only inerrant one.
Kids, don’t get discouraged, this is one of your opposition’s best points thus far: **SNORKSNORK** err *cough, ahem*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 1:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 10:39 AM Incognito has replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 301 (178475)
01-19-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
01-19-2005 5:55 AM


Good Try Paul :
Please Paul, elaborate as to how a Consul can/cannot later become a Procurator? Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I've read many leaders in many cultures in many eras lose some of their political power? Your claim is a little speculative considering almost every Roman record from this time period has been lost/destroyed...
As far as this "alleged" census - modern census techniques are always coming under fire for missing segments of the population. Why would a census undertaken 2000 years ago in a border province be so much more accurate? In fact, with the lack of speedy communication, odds are it could've taken a few years to pan out
They disagree on the reign of Herod the Great and this census? How do you know this again? Oh yes, the historical account by a guy named Josephus who from various encyclopedia descriptions is less than credible.
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Josephus - Wikipedia
Paul, if you don't understand manipulation of historical accounts, I once read a newspaper article that said "Dewey Defeats Truman
As far as these other nameless differences? Point them out, these kids are asking for errors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2005 5:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2005 8:36 AM Incognito has replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 301 (178619)
01-19-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by PaulK
01-19-2005 8:36 AM


Question - you ever heard of somebody losing class status? Before you can make the assertion that an ancient Roman of "Senatorial rank" couldn't have ever become Equestrian class, you need to find some Roman records that say this can't happen... I'll wait Politics is a mean game - if you don't undertand them you should try getting involved
The Romans wouldn't have personally directed a census in a client state? Question, have you ever read the news? Who was really in charge of Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Think any Soviet troops were in East Germany or Poland? How about now in Iraq? Any Americans there? Your client state assertion actually backs up what the Bible says - that the Romans had top level control...
Paul, you write:
"As for the other differences I suggest you carefully read the stories for yourself and see just how little they have in common."
I've read the stories multiple times, please elaborate on the errors I must have missed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2005 8:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2005 5:26 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 301 (178621)
01-19-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ramoss
01-19-2005 7:57 AM


Re: Topic, Tom...Topic!
Ramoss: Please provide proof, other than the already self-contradictory "Free Encyclopedia" article that this census could not have taken place. I have a feeling you can't, because if you could you probably would have by now...
Until you prove Tom wrong, it's hard to call out that you've found an error. Also, try reading the rules about not bringing the exact same topic up with no new information post after post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 01-19-2005 7:57 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ramoss, posted 01-19-2005 3:53 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 301 (178625)
01-19-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Coragyps
01-19-2005 9:19 AM


Hello Coragyps
I will not attempt to argue that Tom or anybody else on this forum is "inerrant." Jupiter "standing still" does seem fishy based on what we know about planetary movement. But Jupiter is also just a hypothesis using the 25 December date which itself is questionable. Seeing as we don't even know what date this "event" happened on, I'd say it's hard to declare this event an error yet. Tom's reference to Jupiter could be an error though, but again, Tom's inerrancy isn't the issue.
If you really don't believe the Biblical account, you need to go figure out when it might have happened. Once you've done that, you need to round up every text you have that would mention similar out of place stars. The major problem you'll run into here is lack of data to work from due to the time from the event and destruction of "evidence."
And again, not to use the Miracle "cop-out" but some things just can't be explained... That doesn't make them errors though, just hard to believe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 9:19 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 4:31 PM Incognito has replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 301 (178641)
01-19-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 10:39 AM


Grover?
"36 Christians," as you read these posts, notice that a guy with 7300 posts and making references to Sesame Street is asking about cultural context. This should not surprise you, it's hard to understand culture from one's computer.
Crashfrog? What's trivial? They way "above" is used? Or the way you are trying to box in its definition? Please check out meaning #4 from Merriam-Webster: 4 archaic : in addition : BESIDES. It seems this scenario is just like the "fowl" issue from before, it really comes down to you as the reader not having a good understanding of vocabulary.
Crashfrog, I used to think that "36 Christians" point about inerrancy was a little bold, but as weak as all these "error" attempts are, I'm beginning to wonder...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 10:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:02 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 301 (178645)
01-19-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Cthulhu
01-19-2005 12:47 PM


Yes, please get worked up
I'm not about to post locust pictures up here, but if you type in the word "locust" and the word "insect" into a search engine, you should be able to come up with a picture. Please take note of the fact that like grasshoppers, 2 of their legs are not like the others In fact 2 of their legs are quite clearly jumping legs
Really this comes down to you not liking Hebrew sentence structure, not an error. Would you have preferred it to say: a bug with 6 legs for walking, but of those 6 legs only 2 of them are for jumping? While you're bagging on the ancient Hebrews, please mail the various governments of the world and politely ask them to change all their sentence structures to that of "contemporary American internet addict."
So back to you, is it really that hard to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Cthulhu, posted 01-19-2005 12:47 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 301 (178653)
01-19-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
01-19-2005 1:46 PM


Percy
You've nailed it right on the head haven't you? Good job. Ok, yes, people are pointing to what look like errors TO THEM. The problem is that none of the "errors" presented yet are errors. Why does explaining the "error" make it not an error? If there's an explanation as to why it's not an error, wouldn't that imply it's not an error?
The problem with your allusion to American history is that with American history, we have corresponding data. With the Bible, everything is conveniently missing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-19-2005 1:46 PM Percy has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 301 (178667)
01-19-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by NosyNed
01-19-2005 1:56 PM


Same question again Ned?
In case you missed message 206 directed at you, Ned
Your Creation Day question can't prove error because scientists themselves still don't know how old the Earth is... Heck, Greek scientists once thought the Earth was flat (yes, that wasn't just the Christians who consequently adopted the idea from them)
Not to mention that "old-earth" theories are for another forum (and please remember that you shouldn't just repeat the same sentence post after post). This isn't the place to debate the enormous amount of "scientific" assumptions you base your beliefs on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 1:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:14 PM Incognito has replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 301 (178674)
01-19-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coragyps
01-19-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Hello Coragyps
I don't disagree that a "significant portent" could have been fabricated... But considering Josephus' account was written after the fact too (after he'd gone through a war, changing sides, various jobs, etc.) you need some better evidence It's hard to prove an "error" has occured if you're going on speculation alone...
As for the guy referencing the Roman History and the German? book. "Roman History" is apparently incomplete (due to loss/destruction) and I'm not fluent in German so to help out us little folk, please translate the relevant info

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2005 4:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 301 (178721)
01-19-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 5:14 PM


Almost...
No, not the same Greek scientists who thought it was round. They didn't come until later... But seeing how all Christians are defamed for the views of predecessors, you shouldn't have issue with this
"Belief in a flat Earth is found in humankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus."
Flat Earth - Wikipedia
The cultural contexts issue is not a cop-out, it's a legitimate statement regarding the misinterpretation of a few words by this group.
In regards to your stall numbering problems - go back to my post 206 or 207 and take note that the word "of" shows why there is no error there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 9:21 PM Incognito has not replied

Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 301 (178781)
01-19-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by 36Christians
01-18-2005 1:00 PM


Tide's Turning...
For "36 Christians:"
In case you haven’t noticed yet, the only errors brought up were those self-admitted by yourselves (the typographical errors caused by the type-setters). The rest of these posts are just folks with their own agendas who’ve never actually done any research beyond surfing the Internet. To sum them up:
1) Misunderstood words that were correct when written and still are understood by most "intelligent" people today. This includes the Horse Stall-Guy who doesn’t understand what of means. "Stall-Guy," if you still don't get my comments in posts 205-208, reread them.
2) Historical comparisons to mysteriously missing/questionable secular histories like Josephus and the fragmented Roman history text. And statements like Romans never would (because we all know civilizations are never corrupt/inconsistent)
3) Attempts at bringing in Creation/dating arguments that nobody, including scientists fully understand. Ned, just because we don’t understand it; it doesn’t make it wrong
As for your class message: The only way you are ever going to get through to the world is by going and becoming the next generation of scientists/researchers so you can knock the critics off their evolutionary/old-earth high horse and put a little more doubt under their skeptical foundations. This means if you waste time in college — get hard science/engineering degrees — not junk like philosophy and/or video games. Don't let them feed you crap like "you're too young, un-educated, not scientists, etc." Most of you are probably smarter at 16 then these guys are at their current ages: Seriously, an adult is just a kid with more life experience, not more brains
And if any Evolutionists tell you that only "ignorant" people are Creationist: My name's Wes, I'm 25, and I graduated from the US Air Force Academy with a Bachelors of Science degree in Economics and a minor in Mandarin Chinese. I may not be "a scientist" but I have enough science/engineering background to understand what I'm reading. I’m also finding there are more of us non-ignorant Creationists than the media leads you to believe
If you really want to do some class research: Print out Evolutionist arguments and break them down line by line. Most of their arguments fall apart with some simple research on the Net... BTW, Evolutionists, "Hovind is stupid" isn't valid scientific evidence...
Finally, don’t put yourselves on the defensive by stating things like the KJV is perfect; take the fight to your critics by making them prove their own points. BTW, an intellectual Storm's brewing, too many of us folks with brains are figuring out Old-Earth/Evolution is just a scientific Potemkin Village...
But who am I to talk? Just a guy in an Internet forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by 36Christians, posted 01-18-2005 1:00 PM 36Christians has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 12:25 AM Incognito has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024