Inerrant Bible?

Here's a "new" inconsistency I noticed. Compare Luke 23:39 to Matthew 27:32. In Luke, one of the robbers crucified with Jesus reviles him, the other rebukes his fellow and is promised by Jesus that he will have eternal life. In Matthew, both give Jesus a hard time.Then again, does anyone here believe the Bible is inerrant?

Boy are you in for it. I am what you would call a fundamentalist and I can answer your questions because I have found that upon examination, there are answers! Most who bring up critiques about the Bible have failed to look to see if there are answers and I suspect this is the case. For instance have you looked at a Bible commentary about this? Have you checked with the Book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" published in 1878 the corrects many of these types of questions? I haven't looked up the supposed contradiction you are positing (I just read your post about Biblical inerrancy) but I will and will get back to you shortly.What you should know is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth century. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek between 2000 B.C. and 70 A.D. When one takes into account the audience of the time and the original language I have never seen an apparent contradiction disappear. The Bible has been rigorously tested by archeology and as Nelson Glueck, world renowned biblical archeologist said 'there has never been an archeological find that contradicted anything in the bible' (paraphrased I'll provide you with the original, as I said I just read your post).
In short there is no such thing as evidence against the Bible and there is nothing but evidence for it. Those who differ are invariably (so far) in ignorance about this topic. They rely on other's opinions about the Bible and don't read both sides for themselves. I suggest you also get a hold of 'Evidence that demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell. He was a Philosophy major who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up proving it.------------------
theo

[QUOTE][b]I haven't looked up the supposed contradiction you are positing (I just read your post about Biblical inerrancy) but I will and will get back to you shortly.[/QUOTE][/b]That is fortunate, because I feared I had built a strawman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
'there has never been an archeological find that contradicted anything in the bible' (paraphrased I'll provide you with the original, as I said I just read your post).

---

How about the pyramids? 4,500 years old and no water damage from a certain flood.......

Hi Joz,Why do you presuppose the pyramids are ante-deluvian? Why can't they be after the flood? D'oh!------------------
theo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
Hi Joz,

​

Why do you presuppose the pyramids are ante-deluvian? Why can't they be after the flood? D'oh!

​

---

how many people were on the ark?8 was it not?How big are the pyramids?How many man hours went into their construction?Unless Noah en famile bred at a rate that would put most rodents to shame there couldn`t have been enough people....Ergo if the flood happened the pyramids construction preceeded the cataclysm.....D`oh squared back to you.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-23-2002]

This is my last post tonight I swear!
Think Gene90, think! When was the flood according to Creationists? If you don't know then the pyramid argument dies. You don't know do you?I have a post in the young earth string that deals with biblical chronology that I will reiterate. I thought you were waiting on my every post, I guess I was wrong.Anyway, the dating from Adam to Abraham is unclear biblically (hence bishop ussher's mistake). We are uncertain as to how the Ancient Jews kept their timetable. When the record states so and so, son of so, it merely indicates progeny not parentage. When the record states so and so begat so and so then direct parentage is indicated. There are gaps in the chronology that are uncertain still. So in other words the date of the flood is unclear biblically that's why creationists refer to the decaying magnetic field etc...to argue a young earth. If the flood was 10,000 B.C. (which would upset radiometric dating by the way as well as any of the four supernova's in recorded history but I was saving that for the other string we were on) or even 5,000 B.C. that is enough time to produce the civilizations on the earth. At the time of Christ the population was two hundred million and now it is over 5 billion in 2000 years. D'oh squared times infinity!OH Yeah!------------------
theo

Sorry Joz,
When I wrote 'think Gene90, think' I was responding to you and screwed up my little barb. D'oh on me!------------------
theo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
This is my last post tonight I swear!
Think Gene90, think! When was the flood according to Creationists? If you don't know then the pyramid argument dies. You don't know do you?

​

I have a post in the young earth string that deals with biblical chronology that I will reiterate. I thought you were waiting on my every post, I guess I was wrong.

​

Anyway, the dating from Adam to Abraham is unclear biblically (hence bishop ussher's mistake). We are uncertain as to how the Ancient Jews kept their timetable. When the record states so and so, son of so, it merely indicates progeny not parentage. When the record states so and so begat so and so then direct parentage is indicated. There are gaps in the chronology that are uncertain still. So in other words the date of the flood is unclear biblically that's why creationists refer to the decaying magnetic field etc...to argue a young earth. If the flood was 10,000 B.C. (which would upset radiometric dating by the way as well as any of the four supernova's in recorded history but I was saving that for the other string we were on) or even 5,000 B.C. that is enough time to produce the civilizations on the earth. At the time of Christ the population was two hundred million and now it is over 5 billion in 2000 years. D'oh squared times infinity!

​

OH Yeah!

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
At the time of Christ the population was two hundred million and now it is over 5 billion in 2000 years.

​

D'oh squared times infinity!

​

OH Yeah!

---

Taking the population at the B.C/A.D crossover to be 200 million and using a more accurate figure of 6 billion for current world population....let population in year X be N (the initial pop) * n (yearly rate of population growth) to the Xth power.....So 2E^8*n^2000 = 6E^9n^2000 = 6E^9/2E^8 = 30Taking logs..2000Log(10)n = Log(10)30Log(10)n = Log(10)30/2000Log(10)n = 7.38560627E^-4Thus n = 1.001702046pretty small rate of growth really......D`oh cubed / 0 back to you......

"How about the pyramids? 4,500 years old and no water damage from a certain flood....... "
--I'm not going to argue it, but just a question, what was it that they dated to date the pyramids? Was it a mummmy or something enclosed in the pyramid?------------------

Hieroglyphs probably, and C14, last I heard no mummies have ever been found in the Great Pyramids. Pillaging and all that.

So Theo how do you account for the population needed to build these ante deluvian pyramids?(Because so far its D`oh cubed over 0 on you)

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Thus n = 1.001702046

---

(For the record I am aware of the number of assumptions that are contained below, in all cases I did my best to give a reasonable figure if someone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that a particular variable should be Y instead of X then I`ll go back and rework from that point on...)Lets give it the benefit of the doubt and round it up to n = 1.002(this by the way agrees with your flood was 10,000 years ago statement and is presumeably how it was derived...)Given that the pyramids were built around 4,500 years ago this gives a GLOBAL population of about 473,000.....Lets say they were evenly distibuted between Asia, Europe, Africa, North and South Americas....This gives 94,600 in Africa and an equal amount in Europe, but the Egyptians would not have had access to this entire population, let us assume a figure of 10% of each this gives a total population of 18,920 under egyptian rule....Let us claim an even distribution of ages and claim that 20% are too young to work and 10% too old....lets also assume that 20% of the population were engaged in feeding and clothing the rest and that 10% formed the preisthoods, aristocracy, armies, civil servants, personal retainers of the rich etc.....This leaves 40% or 7,568 people to build the pyramids....I`m having my doubts already.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-04-2002]

Talk about making something easy complex! Start with the original eight people from the arc and since creationists usually agree with the approximate age of the earth to be about 10,000 years old that would place the flood somewhere around 5000 B.C. Assume Noah and his wife didn't have any more kids and use the three sons and their wives as the progenerators and assume that they each had three children and that each generation had three children every twenty years (generous assumptions on my part, ancient civilizations had as many children as possible and probably at puberty not twenty). That yields the simple calculation of 3 to 25th power which is a possible population of 847,286,600,000 in five hundred years or approx 4500 B.C.Golly Gee, even rounding down because of the possible variables do you think there was enough time for the population to be large enough to produce the manpower for the pyramids? Quantum D'oh