Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 79 (34360)
03-14-2003 9:49 AM


What is the fascination with insisting that the Bible is inerrant on all matters contained within it?
Would a contradiction actually prove that there isn't a God?
There is obviously people out there who have to have empirical evidence to support everything in the Bible, websites like 'wyattarchaeology, Drdino, and AiG is proof of that.
What gets me is that these inerrantists, when shown a clear error that all can see, immediately look for some other interpretation of the text that will keep their fantasy intact.
Just like creationism can drive some people to desparate lengths, Bible Inerrancy has the same detrimental effect on the brain.
A good example of this delusion is illustrated in two posts from Conspirator, in post one he is quite confident that he can prove that any Bible 'contradiction'is not in fact a contradiction at all.
He claims: 'Go ahead and post a supposed "contradiction" and I'll tell you how it isn't a contradiction. This should be fun. '
Now most people would be cautious when stating an absolute, but not an inerrantist, and they invariably end up with the proverbial egg on their faces. By stating that there are absolutely no contradictions Conspirator has made a rod for his own back, a rod that surfaces in his next post:
'I'll see what I can do...but I don't know if I'll have an answer for you.'
Now Conspirator admits that he doesn't know if he can answer the contradiction I posted, which undermines his first statement, an absolute claim no less.
Being a Bible Inerrantist appears to do strange things to a mind, maybe Conspirator has answered some easy 'contradictions' and it has gone to his head. Maybe he thinks that clearing up some 'contradictions', by adding to the text or interpreting the text in a different way or any other tactic, then all contradictions can be cleared up to the Inerrantist's satisfaction.
Finally, I am not specifically highlighting Conspirator here, he is just one example of many that I am sure we can all relate to.
But it does confuse me that people have to perform so many psychological contortions to make their Book into something that it clearly isn't.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2003 10:11 AM Brian has replied
 Message 3 by Dr Cresswell, posted 03-14-2003 1:57 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 79 (34426)
03-14-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
03-14-2003 10:11 AM


You forgot to say that theres more evidence for Jesus' existence than there is for Julius Caesar's! lol
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2003 10:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 79 (34476)
03-15-2003 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Conspirator
03-15-2003 2:05 PM


Hi Conspirator,
Thank you very much for your reply, that was very honest of you and I admire you for ackowledging.
While I am here let me apologise for some of the less than polite comments I posted concerning your posts.
Best Wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Conspirator, posted 03-15-2003 2:05 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 79 (35568)
03-28-2003 7:39 AM


The leading scientist and eminent biblical scholar Dr. Kent Hovind is in no doubt that the Bible contains no errors. How does this genius deal with the mention of the unicorn in the KJV? Well he informs us that there was indeed an animal that resembled the description of the unicorn in the KJV, now for a small prize, can anyone guess which of the following two choices Kent says is a nice fluffy unicorn?
A
B
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by compmage, posted 03-28-2003 7:49 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 79 (36556)
04-09-2003 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by drummachine
04-08-2003 10:22 PM


Not again!
Hi Drum,
You can chalk up every single atheist at this site as being a prophet, and a few others no doubt, as every single one of us knew that you would find a problem with carbon 14 and more than likely either paste a large chunk from a site or post a link.
Also that the author of the link wouldn't have a clue about carbon 14 dating
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 04-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by drummachine, posted 04-08-2003 10:22 PM drummachine has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 79 (36561)
04-09-2003 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
04-09-2003 3:41 AM


Re: Carbon 14 dating
Hi Paul,
Sorry I havent got back to you sooner regarding the dating of the Exodus, I have been really busy here and have only managed a few fleeting visits to the forum.
I have started a new thread called 'The Exodus: A Dead Issue' to discuss the date of the Exodus and related events. I have not covered every possible theory put forward by scholars, but I have gave a brief overview of the topic and hopefully we can learn a few things from each other.
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 04-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2003 3:41 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 67 of 79 (36840)
04-12-2003 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
04-12-2003 9:54 AM


Hi Percy,
I agree with your opinion that Drummachine is an ideal subject of study for this topic, I couldn’t ask for a more suitable example. I am sure he is a very nice and genuine guy, but his inability or unwillingness to accept concrete facts makes me wonder if he is genuinely interested in furthering his knowledge of the real world.
I read some interesting comments in an anthropology book I was reading during the week the authors state that ‘A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.’
(From ‘When Prophecy Fails’ by Leon Festinger, Henry W Riecken and Stanley Schachter, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1956, p.3)
The authors also argue that even when a believer is faced with unequivocal and undeniable evidence they will frequently emerge not only unshaken but also even more convinced of the truth of their belief than they were before. The authors present five conditions that they expect to observe following the disconfirmation of the belief, and of these I think that one in particular relates perfectly to inerrantists.
‘The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.’ (p.4)
This is why idiots like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Carl Baugh, and Ron Wyatt, amongst others, are so resistant to the facts of science, history, and archaeology. They have their armchair science and theology applauded by people who have very little knowledge of these topics and are so desperate for validation of their faith that they latch onto their poor scholarship and this perpetuates the garbage they spout.
It is quite easy to support this. You just have to recall how many times that the same arguments appear here, like the marine fossils on mountain tops, the 14C dating or the ‘if humans evolved form apes why are there still apes’ and if I hear that archaeology confirms the Bible time and time again I will scream!
I think that a great example of believer supporting another believer’s delusions is manifesting itself as we speak on another thread (I’ll let you guess which one).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 04-12-2003 9:54 AM Percy has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 74 of 79 (38141)
04-27-2003 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Mister Pamboli
04-25-2003 8:32 PM


Hi MP
Perhaps God, in such a case, would rightly be accountable to us, for making us so, or for condemning us all on the account of one minor act which any loving father could forgive - and what loving father has not forgiven disobedience in his children?
This, in my opinion, is one of the major flaws in Christian theology. A relatively minor act of eating a fruit results in the eternal torment of billions of people.
The most common excuse I have heard from Christians is something along the lines of 'don't you punish your children if they are naughty? They suggest that a punishment can be a good thing because it stops them making the same mistake. One Christian I spoke to equates it with smacking a child that goes too close to hot stove, it is for their own good!
However, if God created a perfect world then that world would have no experience of right or wrong, so how would telling Adam and Eve that it is wrong to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil mean anything to them?
They wouldn't know what 'wrong' was until after they ate the fruit.
As you say, what type of father punishes so severly for such a minor act of disobedience, and will only forgive them AFTER they torture and murder his son, then accept that he rose from the dead, and then believe in their heart that the son is their lord and saviour.
It is pretty cringable because essentially God has made the error, he then blames us for that error, and to forgive the error we need to torture and murder his son, all this is God's will, HE decided that we had to murder his son, he could have made the criteria for forgiveness anything he wanted to.
It is amazing what people can justify to themselves in order to validate their worldview.
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-25-2003 8:32 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-28-2003 12:22 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 76 of 79 (46057)
07-15-2003 5:50 AM


No end to the madness!
I was sent this page by a believer who claims it confirms the historicity of King David.
http://www.geocities.com/...ns/Forum/5499/bom/KingDavid.html
The 'evidence' in question is as follows:
In recent years, two steles (large stones with writing on them) have been found. The more famous of the two is the Tel Dan Stele, and the other is the Moabite Stone. They were written by enemies of Israel in the 9th century BC and include the phrase: "House of David." In essence, it is strong evidence of the historicity of David by extraneous sources.
This is a very misleading paragraph, and displays a complete ignorance of the subject matter.
We have here four sentences, and these four sentences include at least seven inaccurate claims. I got bored when i got to number seven, I am sure I could find more but why bother?
1. The most blatant misrepresentation is that both these insciptions were found 'recently.' True enough, the Tel Dan Stele was found in the early 1990's, but when was the Moabite Stone found? Would it surprise you to know that it was found 135 years ago! The Moabite Stone, or Mesha Stele was found at Dibon (Dhiban) in 1868
2. The Tel Dan Stele is not in fact ONE inscription. It is an amalgamation of three different fragments, one found in 1993 the other two found in 1994, 11 months later. There is still some debate into whether these three fragments have been joined together correctly.
3. As to which one is more famous, well that also is debatable, one of the inscriptions has a 126 year start on the other one and has been studied by many more scholars. So this is purely a personal, unsupported claim.
4. Both of these insciptions DO NOT contain phrase 'House of David.' Yes the Tel Dan Stele contains 'a' phrase 'bytdwd', but it is highly unlikely that it is referring to a dynasty. The phrase 'bytdwd' in the Tel Dan Stele does not have a word divider between the 'byt' and the 'dwd', which means that it is more likely to be a place name rather than a dynastic name for Judah.
5. The Moabite Stone does not contain the phrase 'House of David' either. This phrase has to be made up by inserting missing letters into the inscription, so technically, we dont know what it says. It has never been demonstrated that the Moabite Stone explicitly mentions the House of David.
6. The Tel Dan Stele may not even have been written in the 9th century BCE. Dating the stele was based partly on the writing found on a cup that was found in the level below where the stele was found. The cup may be better dated to the late 8th century BCE.
7. Finally, to claim that this is strong evidence to the historicity of King David shows that the author of this piece knows diddly about archaeology. Even if these inscriptions were accurate, they are not contemporaneous with David. The Tel Dan Stele may be as much as 200 years after David was said to have lived. If they are accurate they only record the fact that someone BELIEVED that they were part of King David's Dynasty. They do not confirm David's existence at all.
I am not sure what to make of this piece of 'scholarship.' It is from a free website of course, and not from an educational establishment. It is very poorly referenced, and simply accepts things at face value, and not even accurate face value at that. I do not know if this guy is blatantly lying or simply hasn't studied the inscriptions in question, of course, he may not want to investigate them in case it shatters his fantasy.
But the problem is, these misconceptions are rife on the Net, genuine people are being misled by nonsense like this, just as people are being misled over the evolution debate.
Needless to say, I replied to the person who supplied this reference, I sent a detailed, well referenced reply, that detailed the problems with taking these sources as reliable references to King David. I am sure you can guess the outcome, yup, a few Bible verses and a 'you believe what you want I will stick with God's Word'
Ah well, it passed a few hours, and hopefully maybe it has planted a seed in his head.
Brian.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024