Bible inerrancy is well supported

The question concerning Biblical inerrancy is this: why must the Bible be true in every detail for you to have a realistic, mature faith in God?The Flood story is a good test subject, I suppose, because the Biblical account is contradicted by just about every available scientific source. The only people who still support the Bible's account are those who already accept the notion that natural history had to have occurred exactly the way the Bible says. The conventional geological timeline, in contrast, is accepted by people of various faiths and philosophical backgrounds, who simply have been persuaded by the evidence.So if these people, countless Christians included, can accept that the Bible doesn't have to be taken literally in this case, why do you assume that Biblical inerrancy is necessary for faith?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Kendemyer proclaims:

quote:

---

if we cannot trust the Bible in mundane small and verifiable points then its bigger more untestable claims could be argued to be suspect.

---

I'd argue exactly the opposite. If you set up an all-or-nothing dichotomy between total faith in the absolute truth of every detail of the Bible or atheism, then people would have no choice but to abandon faith rather than believe something that they can't rationally accept.I think any believer makes a distinction between the things he finds meaningful in the Bible and the things he can't accept. Every believer makes choices as to what is relevant in the Bible, or when to apply certain scriptural wisdom over possibly contradictory advice. Proverbs 26 advises to 'Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you too become like him.' Then it says, 'Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes.' You obviously can't do both all the time, you have to know when to answer and when to answer not. This advice is very relevant at EvC, believe me.By your standards, if a believer doesn't accept Noah's Flood as literal truth, then he has no reason to accept the Resurrection or find inspiration in the Gospels. I find this an unfair restriction on the Christian imagination, and it's fair to say that very few Christians accept this all-or-nothing deal. There are various scientific, theological, and moral reasons to reject the Flood story as literal truth. It seems that most believers feel no obligation to accept blindly a myth that not only insults their rationality but also offends their moral sense.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall