Biblical contradictions.

So aside from faith, Creationism has nothing going for it?

If the Bible is neither a science book nor a history text, then why do we have Young-Earth Creationism? (By the way, I agree with you on those two points)Also an apparent contradiction:Reconcile Deuteronomy 23:2-4 with John 3:16.

[QUOTE][b]No, I mean just what I said. You argue that creationism is not scientific because of its' base, that being the Bible, which is a religous work and not a scientific work. You also argue that because the Bible is not a scientific work, but rather a religious work, that it can not be used to support the numerous facts which support creationism, thereby making creationism unscientific. That seems pretty circular to me.[/QUOTE][/b]A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is required to support a presupposition on which that conclusion is based. For example, to claim that the Bible is necessarily inerrant because it contains no errors, and then to claim that it necessarily has no errors because it is necessarily inerrant throughout (See AiG SoF Article F).The result is:(1) The Bible is inerrant because it contains no errors.
(2) The Bible contains no errors because it is necessarily inerrant.We argue that Creationism is unscientific because of its methods, ie, the presupposition that the Bible is "inerrant throughout" (see AiG SoF; Article F) precludes any genuine inquiry into whether the Bible really is inerrant.The two arguments you claim are circular are:(1) The Bible is not scientific because it is religious.
(2) The Bible cannot support scientific facts because it is not scientific.I don't see any circularity here, I only see that one claim ("The Bible is religious") being a supposition for the conclusion "The Bible cannot support facts because it is not scientific". [QUOTE][b]The Bible was never meant to be a scientific work, but that does not mean that it does not contain some amazing scientific insight.[/QUOTE][/b]Which is dependant upon the interpretation, of course. You can claim that great astrophysical insights are contained in the Bible but I'm sure that the 'fact' that the Bible contains such insights was 'discovered' only after the astrophysical discoveries were found by entirely secular means! [QUOTE][b]In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations[/QUOTE][/b]Which was it, stars or constellations? One is important to science, the other useless. (I'm splitting hairs though.)

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-29-2002]

[QUOTE][b]It seems that some individuals have never read the Isaiah Scrolls.[/QUOTE][/b]And what museum might I find them in? Also I'd probably have to have a doctorate in ancient languages (Hebrew?) to make sense of them. Which brings us to the question, when did you read the Scrolls?Of course, if you're talking about that chapter in the Bible, you're going to have to tell us which of the 300 or so different versions you have chosen to be infallible, why you chose that version, and how you can assure us that the chapter has not been, shall we say, "edited for consistency" in the millennia since the chapter was written. I still don't understand how anyone can consider the Bible to be infallible unless it was translated by someone infallible.