EvC Forum: Biblical Tall Tales

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Biblical Tall Tales

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 129 of 302 (274877)
01-02-2006 12:17 AM

Reply to: Message 122 by idontlikeforms
01-01-2006 11:50 PM

Re: Giants?

Are you equally zealous to attack the credibility of other ancient manuscripts? Like the writings of the Greeks and Romans?

Is anybody claiming that those are inerrant?

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
	Message 122 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-01-2006 11:50 PM		idontlikeforms has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 168 of 302 (274981)
01-02-2006 10:18 AM

Reply to: Message 139 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 1:21 AM

Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?

idontlikeforms writes:

I may not be able to prove 100% that the Bible is innerant. But I can provide logic and evidence to argue that it is innerant.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here.

As best I can tell, you are using "inerrant" to mean that there were no serious copying errors between the putative original versions and the current versions. When most people use the word "inerrant", they mean something completely different.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 139 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 1:21 AM		idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 174 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 2:15 PM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 185 of 302 (275023)
01-02-2006 2:54 PM

Reply to: Message 174 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 2:15 PM

Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?

I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Check for example what this site has to say about the definition of inerrancy.

" Generally, "inerrancy" refers only to the original handwritten (a.k.a. autograph) copy of each of the books of the Bible. Subsequent copies may contain accidental copyist errors or intentional additions/deletions by forgers."Is the Bible inerrant -- free of error

Yes I'm afraid we are using the word differently.

Sorry, but I am still not clear on what you mean by "inerrancy."

Going be the definition you provided, I take "inerrancy" to mean that what was written in the original copy was true. That is, the original copy contained no erroneous statements.

When you were previously asked for evidence of inerrancy, you referred to Message 131 and Message 133. But those messages were mainly arguments that currently available copies of the text should not have deviated too far from the original copy. I don't see that as having anything at all to do with inerrancy.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 174 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 2:15 PM		idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 187 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 3:08 PM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 192 of 302 (275036)
01-02-2006 3:20 PM

Reply to: Message 187 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 3:08 PM

Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?

idontlikeforms writes:

But basically my argument works like this. The orignal written document was God-inspired and the word of God.

Then you need to provide evidence to support this. Or, alternatively, you should stop saying that you are providing evidence of inerrancy.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 187 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 3:08 PM		idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 195 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 3:38 PM		nwr has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 214 of 302 (275105)
01-02-2006 6:16 PM

Reply to: Message 206 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 5:33 PM

Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?

idontlikeforms writes:

The theory of gravity is testable, evolution is not.

You should expect strong disagreement over that.

quote:
To claim historicity, I agree with you there. It's a historical text. To say it's inerrant or supernatural, that requires some extra evidence.

There is plenty of internal evidence for this type of a claim. Perhaps you non-Christians are unaware of that.

Some of the people you are referring to as non-Christians might actually be Christians who do not accept inerrancy. Others likely have been Christians (often evangelicals) before coming to their current views.

It's not like you can refute it.

That depends on what is meant by "inerrancy". It could mean

when what the text says disagrees with observation (including scientific observation) then we have misunderstood the text and must find a different way of understanding it; or

when the text disagrees with observation, then observation is wrong.

If you mean "inerrancy" in the second sense, then any contradictory observation refutes inerrancy and you are depending on ad hoc special pleading to believe otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 206 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 5:33 PM		idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 237 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 11:16 PM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 239 of 302 (275190)
01-02-2006 11:21 PM

Reply to: Message 237 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 11:16 PM

Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?

quote:
That depends on what is meant by "inerrancy". It could mean
# when what the text says disagrees with observation (including scientific observation) then we have misunderstood the text and must find a different way of understanding it; or
# when the text disagrees with observation, then observation is wrong.

If you mean "inerrancy" in the second sense, then any contradictory observation refutes inerrancy and you are depending on ad hoc special pleading to believe otherwise.

I think it's inerrant to begin with. People misunderstand the Bible in more ways than just what is relevent in regard to scientific observations. I'm not afraid or unwilling to debate issues where skeptics claim the Bible is incompatible with science. But I am only one man and have only so much free time too, so I think I need to stick to one topic at a time.

Nicely evaded.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 237 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 11:16 PM		idontlikeforms has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0