Inerrant Bible?

Belief in the Inerrancy of the Bible requires strong bias, that is, a stablished faith in the gospel of the Christ of God dying for persons' sins, being buried, raising up, and ascending up on high for persons' eternal justification. Once this strong bias, the Christian faith, is established within an individual, then and only then will the Bible manifest itself as inerrant.
Our repeated doting of numbers, empirical mechanisms of biblical events, minor translational glitches, etc. cannot violate the inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible also proves itself inerrant with multi-faceted non-empirical mechanisms involving: history, poetry, perspective-observations, prophecy, legalistic comparisons, etc.
Find me a person that really believes Jonah was in the belly of a whale 3 days and 3 nights. Such a believer would have to be extremely biased, i.e., an enlivened Christian, alone.

To Shrafinator.My faith/biases appear at present to diametrically oppose thousands of the faith/biases of mere existential scientists. Give me your own deductions, not those of grasshoppers. I feel your pain and theirs because I, too, am somewhat imprisoned in this space-time continuum and am made to feel the untowardness of sin (like Charles Huxley even preached).Basically a Bible-flipping ‘fundy’ can really only be a fundy if he believes that Jesus Christ came from God to die to take away his sin, was buried, and rose again to justify/love him forever. This alone is your 'enlivened' Christian who believes the Bible is God's word (inerrant). Like the Christ Jesus who walked the earth, his faith/bias is grieved to reject any scripture. The Bible is a fine-tuned irreducible complexity (I myself do believe) to the Christian (‘little-Christ’). I thus try not too reject any part of it, at least as it relates to the whole book.Using your flood-ark example. The sold-out fundy (which I try to be) has no problem with his bias/faith in seeing the flood occur as per Bishop Usshur's chronology. Why? Because the Noahic flood, like Jonah and the whale, is analogous to a person being baptized with God's son, i.e., dying with Christ, being safely buried amidst the great flooding tempest of God's wrath, then raising above the dead, surrealistically. The fundy then proceeds to seek scientific evidence, song, poetry, company of others, etc., for his faith/bias and surrealism. For example, today I read: Naoh was 500 years old when he started his mission, 600 years old when the huge and complex ‘barge/ark’ was complete. Almost 2 life-times were involved for this immense undertaking. Note the awe-inspiring possibilities and planning that can take place over such a long period of time.I myself utilize every thread of logic and reason possible to ‘encourage’ and ‘feed’ this faith/bias in God as my Saviour, lest by doubting and doting I feel lost, damned, and doomed, dead, and un-enlivened, which I trust I am not. (Observe this fundy’s faith/bias?) I’ve read the flood debate. JP gives humorous validity to the science-mechanisms. The discourse is followed by dotings and janglings of merely ‘what-if’ scenarios like where did enough fresh water come from. This type of cantankerous doting is not very praiseworthy to support the evolutionist’s incredible faith/biases.Thank you for your challenge.

Brad mentioned the 'dispensationalist' approach to the Bible (perhaps understanding it). The expository scriptures do harmonize under such an approach, for the most part, albeit, without the poetic Halleluia's, etc. which are way beyond any literalist's approach.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I still prefer litterally approaching the reading of the text. The reason is that the IMAGE of organisms with horns I have never been able to remmeber back to my reading of living herps DIFFERENT than the pictures of dino bones. When reading the Bible More literally I find that as I do not really know the dispensationalist techinique I do think now of references in the books and though this may not be my duty to have so divided it I rather once I gain a better literal comprehension THEN go to the Gospels.

---

--The literal is often poetical and vice-versa. When you read "Halleluiah", you may praise God literally and/or poetically to varying degrees. Dispensations (I agree) are biased and biasing, yet useful at times to rationally 'transend' this cursed reality, though not as 'resurrecting' as the raw biblical words themselves.

I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation. For this gospel is extremely conspicuous (as devised by God Himself) throughout those scriptures alone. Science also bears witness to such a gospel via the appearances of ID (think Honda-Civic), a manifest multi-tiered ‘curse’, and observed ‘redemptive’/’restoring’ events.Care to hear more, anyone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

1) The Bible is the only source of information about Christ's death, burial and resurrection. 2) A source cannot confirm itself.
--Percy

---

1) There are innumerable other sources of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in religions and in nature (already discussed under ID necessarily the Christian one).2) I’m not sure what semantics are meant here. A source cannot always speak, true. But sources per se seem to confirm themselves, often scientifically. A rock ‘presents’ as a rock, etc. Philip as Philip, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Philip writes:

---

1) There are innumerable other sources of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in religions and in nature (already discussed under ID necessarily the Christian one).

---

​

Other sources derive their information from the NT, which are problematic. What you are left with is the testimony of believers rather than objective observers. If we are to give full credibility to Christian witnesses then we must do the same for witnesses of other religions, and you can't all be right.
--Percy

---

--Redemptive and/or restorative events are everywhere seen and expected in nature, albeit to various degrees, so that the inferred Gospel is without excuse i.e.:
--Refreshment is expected occurs after sleep
--Expect to wake up tomorrow.
--Expect to see some light in the darkness.
--Expect to see a little compassion from someone amidst your travail.
--Expect to find some food in times of hunger.
--Expect to find transportation to that necessary event.
--Expect the water to cleanse the bodies filth.
--Expect the earth to produce for its ungrateful inhabitants.
--Expect creative ideas to resurrect within one’s ‘dull’ consciousness.
--Expect science to help man dominate his chaotic environment more and more.
--Expect men to haply feel after the Gospel in nature and the OT without NT sources.Both ID and the nature of ID are observed and ‘believed’ upon via such numerous observed data-sources, despite men’s refusal to accept the theoretical facts of the Gospel faith they exploit. Such refusal appears as sin against science.
Want some more redemptive and/or restorative observed events of nature that infer a ‘Christ-like’ science taking place?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Well, that was Brad-like. I think you just responded to what I hope was a reasoned argument with a sermon. Do you have any responses to anything I said?

​

--Percy

---

--Respectfully, who here has not been Brad-like in our self-deceiving generalizing ‘proofs’ based on science falsely so-called? Myself, Quetzel, Dr. Taz, Moose, Joe, TC, TB, JP? When it comes to boldly formulating the necessary mutations in the ToE, we’re ALL suddenly BRAD-LIKE, no?
--Respectfully, Percy, what other things did you really want to address?
--Wasn’t I merely invoking ‘natural’ non-NT proofs, with conclusions based on natural observations on the existence and the nature of ID (where did we mis-communicate)? I thought I provided you a short string of natural observations/potential proofs on the (ID) nature of ‘restorative’ events. This is not true sermon material (see below).
--Sermon material is I’m a miracle, you’re a miracle, I’m a sinner, you’re a sinner, we all justly deserve to be damned, Christ came to totally forgive the idiotical sinners, etc.
--Just because I stated much observable phenomenon appears ‘restorative’/’redemptive’ in nature.
--Albeit, my responses may indeed be ‘sermon-like’/sermonoid. Huxley spoke against sin as an evo-atheist. It seems impossible to come up with an ID that isn’t Gospel-like I’m afraid. With any other ID model, as it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP.

I think I agree with you here.
(Note: I'd like to see non-evangelicals give some scientific workup(s) of their ID(s) and the nature(s) thereof)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
1) There are innumerable other sources of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in religions and in nature (already discussed under ID necessarily the Christian one).
--Uhh.... where? None of the known Roman records have anything to say about it, for example.

---

--I won’t contend on the Roman records, specifically.

quote:

---

And, in nature? Do we have fossils? What?

---

--I cited the thread above ‘ID necessarily the Christian one’; since you probably didn’t look there, I will quote some for you. You decide whether or not the data in nature at least suggests (to varying extents) the Christ crucified-risen ID model.DATA (OBSERVED):
I. CREATION (SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM) PER SE
A) A great and terrible appearing darkness, formlessness, and void exists.
--A ‘cold’ yet ‘hellish’ outer darkness is seen to inundate >99% of universe. Temperatures are near absolute zero. No life-forms are detectable therein.
--Science and mathematics (to a great extent) appear useless in such a void.
B) The phenomenon light is observed/detected — electromagnetic radiation.
--‘Brightness’ and ‘Warmth’ is seen and felt here amidst the great ‘darkness’ of space.
--Sophisticated science with mathematically measurable parameters, are now detectable, including, ‘special relativistic phenomenon’ (‘E=MC2’).II. UNIVERSAL EXPANSION/COSMOGENESIS
A)
1. Lower skies manifest violent meteorological instability.
--Hurricanes, lightning, tornados, violent storms, etc.
--Pollution has increased and Protective ozone is decreased in the upper atmosphere, etc.
2. An even greater darkness, formlessness, and void seen -- via Doppler waves -- expanding every moment within the universal ‘expanse’.
--Primordial(-like) atmospheric substrates detected on celestial orbs, e.g., CO2 ‘vapor canopies’, obnoxious gases, etc. (i.e., on Venus), appearing uninhabitable.
--Celestial ‘waste’, ‘death’, and ‘decay’ increasingly ubiquitous in the cosmos.
--Increasing cosmic randomization events, increasing entropic destruction.
B)
1. Lower skies manifest overall stabilizing effects.
--Hurricanes, storms, extreme seasonal changes, etc. --> necessary ‘purging’ of detrimental eco-networks.
--Many ozone, pollution catastrophes, etc. averted/post-poned (by ‘fortuitous’ advances in science and recent laws)
2. Universal expanse and expansion detectable as orderly:
--Earthly atmospheric substrates have sustained life for millennia.
--Expansion appears harmonious, symmetrical, well-aligned and proportional in great measure (per se).
--Relative infinitudes (black holes, worm-holes, etc.) are detected in the expanding universe, and with effects that are only explainable via abstract theoretical sciences (e.g., ‘general relativity’, etc.).III. (1) GEOLOGY AND (2) BOTANICAL EXPANSION
A)
1. Ominous appearing ‘oceans of fire’ detectable below the earth’s strata and ‘oceans of water above’.
--‘Volcanic upheavals’, earthquakes, etc.
--Floods, tidal waves, etc.
2. Innumerable vegetations/fruits decay:
--Rotting, decaying, burning, etc.
--Many grains threaten extinction if neglected by human farming.
--Vicarious failures of harvests.
--Extreme ‘randomization’ forces threaten chaos in eco-systems.
B)
1. Powerful land boundaries/masses
--Geological strata appears to prevent much volcanic and seismic disturbances.
--Continental boundaries appear to prevent global floods of oceans.
2. Botanical treasures appear to be resulting amidst decay of vegetation
--Carbonaceous deposits --> massive global energy for present use.
--Innumerable flowering plants and trees taxonomically replenish/multiply with fruit and/or seeds.
--Technological farming and molecular botany exploitation (by man) --> abundant harvests.
--‘Randomization forces offset by finite taxonomical limitations, defense mechanisms.IV. SPECIFIC LUMINARIES / ASTRONOMY
A) Innumerable battered moons and other celestial orbs that appear arbitrary and wasted.
--An infinite number of celestial orbs appear damaged, ‘aborted’, useless, pointless, strung out without any apparent purpose, etc.
--Star systems appear to be dying — ‘red dwarfs’, etc.
--An infinitude of planets appear unfavorable to sustain life.
B) Celestial luminaries observed for (diurnal) time-clocks and beneficial cyclic seasonal effects, with other potential appearing uses.
--Peculiar harmonies, symmetries, and proportions are observed in numerous stellar systems. ‘Dish’-like orbital symmetry seen in our lunar rotation and solar system, and most galaxies.
--Stars have a relatively long-appearing life cycle.
--Trans-earth habitation appears remotely promising, at least pending extensive supernatural and/or scientific intervention.V. ZOOLOGY EXPANSION.
A) Swarms of creatures/life-forms endure ‘violence’ in lands, air, and seas.
--Many incur ‘hard’ sicknesses, often protracted deaths, starvation.
--‘Survival of the fittest’ is seen in vicarious splendor.
--Deleterious DNA mutations increasingly abound.
--‘Hypervariability’ and DNA-‘Mutation spots’ often --> drug ‘resistant’ bacteria .
B) Innumerable life-forms/creatures observed taxonomically ‘multiplied’ to replenish and overcome violent unfavorable conditions.
--Offspring replenish habitats. ‘Graceful’ appearing cadences, dances, noises observable
--Innumerable peculiar appearing and complex ‘niches’ after their kinds are observed.
--‘Sophisticated’ DNA-repair mechanisms correct many DNA mutations.
--Science technology --> superior drugs, technology, etc.VI. HIGHER LIFE FORMS/MAN
A) Atrocious violence observed in higher life-forms and/or man: E.g.,
--dogs fight cats, snakes ‘charm’ victims, numerous predators instigate ‘terror’.
--Sickness, crying, travailing and groaning amidst all diverse life-forms and man.
--Pedophiliacs, murderers, terrorists
--Wars: Nation against nation, etc.
--Sickness and aging goes on without ceasing. Metastasis and cancer abounds.
--Crying and groaning in all upper life forms.
--Divorce, adultery, fornication, immorality, pornography --> ‘nuclear family’ decay.
--Unrestrained ‘free wills’ appear everywhere to conflict with each other.
B.) Songs of ‘deliverance’ heard among humans. Innumerable and diverse ‘renewals’ observed within creatures:
--Friendship and ‘praise’ postures are apparent. Fights often cease.
--A travailing woman is observed to ‘cheerfully’ endure her travailing.
--Acts of ‘kindness’ abound and justice is observed to various extents. Abundant ‘love’, ‘forgiveness’, ‘peace’, and ‘patience’ also witnessed.
--Nations have not yet annihilated >1% global inhabitants. ‘Peace’ reigns at times.
--‘Healing’, ‘courage’, ‘Christian-like’ behavior continue. Technological knowledge has increased.
--Songs are composed and sung. Art, writing, and hosts of other ‘joyous’ observations.
--Many ‘courtship’ and ‘marriage’ events continue -- even atheists are observed to ‘marry’ with relatively low divorce rates (i.e., compared to evangelicals).
--Free will seen subservient to forces of ‘love’ (e.g., ‘heroism’, ‘cooperation’, ‘church-meetings’, etc., etc.).TEST RESULTS: Comparisons of (A) ‘SIN-CURSED’ observations and (B) ‘REDEMPTION’ observations: (A) Innumerable marks of destruction, ‘mutation’, ‘slow death’, and decay seem ubiquitous in the cosmos: ‘Eroding’ systems, ‘cursed’ life-forms, entropic events, and deleterious mutations, indeed, seem ubiquitous to all levels of the cosmos. ‘Mutation spots’ and ‘hypervariability’ in drug resistant bacteria seem to imply ‘dexterous cursedness’ in the design model. ‘Free-will’ itself and the numerous randomization events taking place seem sin-cursed.Indeed, such ‘vexation’, ‘pointlessness’, and ‘uselessness’, etc. seems to fail the All Benign Designer test. Many preliminary observations, thus appear cursed, from a perspective of an intelligent designer.
(B) Yet, the creation/cosmos is observed to be renewed and/or quickened: i.e., with light, ‘seasons’, rains, marriages, etc., as noted in the data in numerous redemptive events occurring on all cosmic levels. The creation/cosmos, creatures/life-forms, and man are ‘saved’ to various extents by innumerable ‘redemptive’ events, including physical and even metaphysical events (i.e., ‘marriage’ events). For each and every sin-cursed observation, another observation may be linked that appears to varying extents, ‘redemptive’.CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION:
The personality behind such an intelligent design (ID) here would commiserate with all ‘sin-cursed’ observations and ‘redemptive’ ones. Such a personality is explicitly apparent in the Christ-Creator model, a Christ who himself became completely ‘sin-cursed’ but ‘risen from the dead’, redeeming the creation thereby. The natural marks of such redeeming events appear everywhere as expected under the ‘evangelical’-creationist hypothesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Yes, and a book 'presents' as a book-- the Bible included. That's it. The end. But this doesn't have anything to do with it being a correct account of anything at all. The Hitchhiker's Guide may as well be your source. It'd make things a lot more fun.

---

--Are not books are analogous to telescopes: they enable you to focus upon specific events, physical and/or metaphysical. Science, seems no different, albeit science seems perhaps more concerned with abstracting physical events, to most people. Science may be just another book, in my opinion. It may be the bible of books, in your opinion. Science, however, does not seem to cover human ethics very well. The Bible addresses this metaphysical event, apriori.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation.

​

But why does this have any special meaning as far as inerrancy, compared to any other Bible story?
I mean, you can't use a story in the Bible to prove that the whole Bible is inerrant.

---

--The problem (I perceive) with the Bible, is that every page requires this Christ phenomenon for it to be inerrant and credible, even in Genesis 1 and 2. Remove the interdependent Christ model and the scriptures become mere ethical fables, no more trustworthy then the Haitian Voodoo fables (aka. blatant Devil worship).
-- Show me a page in the Bible that makes sense without the Christ motif. You yourself might say: Proverbs, Job, the historical books, etc. But, I respond, these OT books are all supersaturated with ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’ data (natural and supernatural) and direct portraits/figures of the Christ to be sans the Christ model.
--This will sound crazy to you, Shraf, but the Gospel ‘story’ is more scientific than the scriptures. We both may agree that the scriptures do not employ a scientific method. The Bible merely telescopes the science of Christ’s vicarious sufferings and resurrection in all things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
(Philip) For this gospel is extremely conspicuous (as devised by God Himself) throughout those scriptures alone.
So says you. That's a nice theology, but it is based upon faith alone.

---

--That’s a conclusive faith based on hypothesis, methods, testing, observed data, results, and conclusions, using the scientific method.
(please, see my discussion with John, in this thread)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shraf:
(Philip) Science also bears witness to such a gospel via the appearances of ID (think Honda-Civic)

​

I'm thinking Honda Civic, but what does that have to do with ID?
When you can show me a Honda that reproduces itself by mating with another Honda, we might have something to talk about.

---

--ID is apparent (to varying degrees) in all things, even to you Shraf. You might cleverly explain it away 99%, but it nonetheless suggests itself to your ‘scientific’ conscience (I believe) from time to time under a different guise perhaps.--Thanks for your feedback,
--Philip

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-04-2002]

--I hope we can re-group. I almost agree with the skeptic’s (Carl Sagan’s) definition of science here.

quote:

---

by Shraf
"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."

---

--Presently, just how logically cohered to scientific reasoning and methods are you, Shraf? Can one parsimoniously limit scientific deduction to mere ‘seeable’ events. Is not science also ‘beautiful’ (i.e., with various harmonious, symmetrical, and proportional excellencies and relationships), and not limited by skeptical restrictions you or I may impose on what is and is not empirical?--You disallow meager idiots (myself and all YECs) to make ‘hypotheses’ based on the observed data, of the science of the Christ and Him cursed, decayed, destroyed, yet risen from the dead, only because you seem (respectfully) extremely biased. Your superfluity of hand-waving responses seems to betray extreme uncertainty and extreme bias in this regard.

quote:

---

by Shraf
"Mere" ethical fables? Your beliefs aside, these "mere" ethical fables have molded the moral backbone of much of western civilization.

---

--What? Judaism with its impossible ordinances and he-goat sacrifices? How so? What moral backbone?: Secular humanism, divorce, sodomy, pedophilia?

quote:

---

by Shraf
Oh, and your comment about Hatian Voodoo and "the Devil" just shows that you believe in the Devil, and that you don't know much about the origins of Voodoo. Your religion has as much scientific evidence as Voodoo does.

---

(Note Haitian translation in parenthesesJ)
--I just happen to know origins of the Haitian Voodoo, Shraf, fluently. (Mwen Konnen sous baggai ki nan Vodo Aietien-yo, Shraf)
--I know they worship the devil directly more than other Voodoos. (Mwen konnen yo adore diabla directment ki plis pase Vodo-l’ot peyi-yo)
--99% of Haitians ‘believe’ in Christ or else the devil, never evolution as we do. (99% Aietien-yo ‘kwe’ nan Kris-la selmen, osinon yo kwe nan diabla, you pap jam kwe nan evolucion tankou nou)
Why not take a lesson from our Haitian Voodoos, Shraf. They ALL strongly believe that evolutionists are a fraud while cheerfully confessing being under the power of the Devil, e.g., I am under the Devil (Mwen anba Diabla). I here this all the time in Haiti, Shraf. Why? Because they know the science of Christ crucified/risen far more than you and I, and many choose the Devil directly (to consume their lusts), in lieu of any form of life-less atheism perhaps, because atheism/evolutionism gives them nothing at all. To you this may sound like a lot more fun, empirically.--I try to show you fully formulated work-ups of examples of observed empirical data on all cosmic levels, but you peradventure hand-wave them all (i.e., refuse to acknowledge them), peradventure, to sermonize other supposed ‘empirical’ constructs by begging ‘science’ itself, repeatedly. This may be parsimonious to you, but it is scientific inquiry?--Well, I’m not trying to hand-wave the rest of your comments. They are all duly noted. Its real late. My apologies for crudeness, ineptness, hand-waving, incoherencies, slanders, and/or other ‘sin’ister motives.--(Please don’t place me on that ever-so-dreaded ‘banish’ list.)--Finally, salute the evo-brethren at the hi-ways and bi-ways; compel them come out of their darkness into the marvelous light of our fallacious parsimony in the sciences. Until our next thread

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, are you going to discuss your forced logical gymnastics of using a Bible story as your reason for believing the inerrancy of the Bible, or are you just going to keep blowing smoke up our you-know-whats in the hopes that we will forget the original question that you STILL, afer all of those words you have typed, have NOT ADDRESSED?

---

--Thanks for your kind re-invitation, Shraf.
--And what original question is that? Why the Bible is inerrant?
Only the DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION OF THE CHRIST FOR A ‘CREATED’/‘CURSED’/’RESTORED’ CREATION IS PORTRAYED EVERYWHERE IN NATURE AND IN THE BIBLE.
--(1) In the Bible: No other mechanism could possibly hold the Bible together as the inerrant Word of God: the ‘Christ and Him Crucified’, the Gospel Word (which you call another ‘story’) is boldly ‘portrayed’ in every book of the Bible. No one, even honest atheist, denies that.
--(2) In nature (cosmos): The observed data on all cosmic levels suggests ‘creation ID’,’curse’, and ‘redemption’/’restoration’, that is inexcusable for denying such a nature on empirical grounds. Again, I thought I made that clear on this thread (I even gave hundreds of empirical observations of such on this very thread):--Respectfully Shraf, concerning ‘divorce’: one of my statements, on this here thread (message 58), already stated even atheists are observed to ‘marry’ with relatively low divorce rates (i.e., compared to evangelicals) This was the very post (#58) that contains much of my materials and methods, observed data, etc.; I'm beginning to wonder if you ever read it. Did you read it, Shraf?
(--But you’ve done me no wrong, as long as I'm not banished forever on you or Quetzel's 'ignore' list.)--Hey, what about you other evo’s (and YECs) out there? Stop hiding behind phylogenetic ‘trees’ and help a sister out here:
Might the Bible be inerrant by any other mechanism (using the ‘rule’ of parsimony and likeliest cause)
Again the mechanism of Biblical inerrancy I postulate is: THE SCIENCE OF CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED, that is so 'reflected' (like electrons in electron microscopes) by what we see and expect to see in nature all around us. (HALLELUIAH--IOW I’m sermonizing sister! Somebody stop me!)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]In the Bible: No other mechanism could possibly hold the Bible together as the inerrant Word of God: the ‘Christ and Him Crucified’, the Gospel Word (which you call another ‘story’) is boldly ‘portrayed’ in every book of the Bible. No one, even honest atheist, denies that.[/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

The Christ story is not found in the Song of Solomon or Amos. I very much doubt you will find it in Genesis, Hebrews, or Deuteronomy either. Truely it is not in Job or Ruth for that matter, but I'm sure you will vehemently disagree.

---

--Thanks for your response: Respectfully, I only stated that, in order for the scriptures to be inerrant, the Bible would have to have the Christ inferred on every page. I wasn’t going to prove Christ on every page of the Bible ( as this has been done already by 99% of mainstream Catholic and Evangelical commentators). Now, this Christ may be inferred ‘subjectively’, ‘poetically’, ‘prayerfully’, ‘parsimoniously’, ‘empirically’, ‘prophetically’, ‘graphically’, ‘scientifically’, etc. by the written scriptures. I can not personally prove it, Gene. I meagerly present to you a few of the mainstream literary explanations:SONG OF SOLOMON: The story of a King and his love-sick Beloved: Christ is conspicuously portrayed in intimate consummation with his bride, i.e., the church-bride he ‘redeemed’ at Calvary. This is supported by all ‘mainstream Christian’ commentaries; but not all Jewish ones. This book is the love story between Christ and His Redeemed Church. Don’t take my word for it, ask any evangelical ‘brother’. This Christ is in a glorious state (i.e., ‘risen’) albeit he ‘suffers’ love’s passions (c/w His giving his life unto death).AMOS: This prophesizes Christ (as do all the prophets) in His second coming. He prophesizes the Lord (Christ) CURSING SIN on surrounding peoples and RESTORING the world. The vision of Amos (prophesizing beyond the Northern kingdom of Israel into the so called Kingdom Age) is directly parallel to the vision of John in Revelation. Here, it is the CRUCIFIED-LAMB of GOD who judges and restores the world.
Of course if Amos’s God is not the CRUCIFIED-LAMB judging and restoring, then the Bible is incoherent here, and inerrant.GENESIS: Filled with TYPES and PORTRAITS of Christ (crucified and risen). Heb. Ch 11 re-iterates these. The plural Godhead in Gen 1; the Gen 3.15 curse with the serpent crushing ‘Christ’s heel’, Adam (clothed with animal skins--i.e., bloody Lamb skins); Able offering ‘lamb-like’ sacrifices acceptable to God; Isaac (the Seed) being sacrificed and accounted by Abraham that God would raise him (Heb 11.19), Sarah bearing an impossible birth (Isaac), Joseph being sold by his brethren and returing to redeem them in Egypt, etc. etc.HEBREWS: every verse; extremely graphic exposition of Christ crucified and risen (more than most New Testament books).DEUTERONOMY: Laws and Ordinances of Moses all fulfilled in Christ; i.e., his obedience unto death (as explained in the NT books)
The Lamb of God is portrayed in all the numerous vicarious sacrifices (in all the books of the law) to forgive and restore a sin-cursed people (else the sacrifices would be in vain).JOB: I know my redeemer liveth. Job’s patience and vicarious sufferings = Christ-like, a portrait of Christ crucified, then restored.RUTH: Boaz (type of Christ), redeemed Ruth, a gentile bride. True, the story seems more about the ‘suffering’ bride/church of Christ, then Christ himself.It would literally take innumerable (perhaps infinite) volumes to fully extrapolate all the types, figures, portraits, and shadows of ‘the Christ crucified and risen from the dead’ model (in the Bible) by Christians, commentators, theologians, and the like. Additional ones multiply due to unique (empirical and metaphysical) perspectives by every individual on this very Christ-motif (yours included).--Sincerely, Philip

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

It is illogical to say that becase a particular theme runs through a book, and without that theme the book would make no sense, the book is therefore proven to be inerrant.
That is like saying that the Harry potter books would make no sense if the Character of Harry Potter wasn't really the only in the world kid who survived an attack by You Know Who. Of course the book wouldn't make any sense if you messed about with the main theme, but how does this translate into evidence, somehow, of the book being inerrant?

---

--(Again, thanks for your kind and loyal responses. Albeit please forgive me if I only respond to the most significant-to-my-conscience statements. And I invite you to do the same if you wish. If I miss a point, you REALLY wish to discuss, please re-emphasize it.)-- Shraf. I grant:
--1) The main theme of the book does not necessarily confer inerrency.
--2) ‘A book makes no sense without the main theme.’Indeed, 1 and 2 are both CORRECT deductions. You are rightfully concerned about 1. Number 1 completely goes against a person (myself in this case) who states that the main theme (alone) invokes inerrency.This answer should not violate your conscience (if it does so, please state):A book (The Bible in this case) is, say, filled with innumerable apparently conflicting and apparently ‘fabricated’ events, that weigh extremely heavy against it being an inerrent book. Every word seems desperately connived, concocted, and/or politically schemed, even downright fraudulent. E.g.,
--It rained 40 days and 40 nights
--the mountains of Ararat were covered with water for 150 days
--the stars fell from heaven
--(‘errors’ are translational and perhaps transcriptional as most of us are painfully aware. These errors are not relevant, in my opinion, because these are entirely due to reader’s language pollutants and misconstruing, and not due to the author’s errors at all. So we won’t discuss the reader’s errors, only the author’s errors, OK?)
--And Jonah was in the belly of the whale 3 days and 3 nights.
--It rained fire and brimstone.
--Etc.
--Time would fail to mention the numerous conflicting miracles of the Bible, the prophetic ‘lapses’, the ‘biases’, the ‘impossible commandments’, etc., all of which appear error-infested, like a cancerous fraud.--Doubtless (as you have already strongly contended), the same scriptures, nevertheless, in their varying degrees of ethical and cultural use, become utilized, while as yet there is no main theme. Yet the ‘errors’ persist.
--Then after thousands of ‘cursed’ years ‘comes along’ a ‘peculiar’ main theme, i.e., the Gospel theme (‘story’) of a Christ -- crucified for sin and risen from the dead. But, THE ‘ERRORS’ STILL similar errors, up to this present day.--BUT ONE DAY, a man, woman, or child in this space-time continuum, becomes filled with the logical terror that there is a Creator, one who is creating, cursing, and/or redeeming. Numerous empirical evidences on all cosmic levels render his/her conscience ‘prone’ to extreme ‘disonnance’. The ‘erroneous’ Bible still does not succor the ‘wretch’. But, the Gospel of A CHRIST -- CRUCIFIED FOR SIN AND RISEN FROM THE DEAD suddenly grows to satisfy on his/her conscience. It sends him/her to the floor in unexpected ‘baptismal regeneration’, the ‘Holy of Holy’s if you will.
--AFTER THAT, THE BIBLE BECOMES INERRANT, VIA THE MAIN THEME CHRIST. ALL THE ABOVE ‘ERRORS’ SUDDENLY BECOME TOKENS OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY.
--The conscience-stricken wretch suddenly becomes subjectively BIASED that the miracles did in fact occur. His/her ‘quickened imagination’ places him in the ark of Noah directly? Why? Because he/she experiences being BURIED WITH CHRIST in those floods pounding on the ark, albeit with relativistic perceptions of time dilation/constriction.
--Inerrency grows as he/she gasps in prayer inside the belly of a whale like Jonah’s, defying all conventional logic. The stars, the brimstone, yeh the Holy of Holy’s is come down upon such a wretch/wretchress as he/she experiences being ‘redeemed’ from the ‘curse’.
Then the book becomes experienced as increasingly inerrant and animated, by this main theme/character. Not via conventional/parsimonious logic I suppose.--Philip