Inerrant Bible?

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).

---

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

quote:

---

-- 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.

---

Look, why are you talking about all of this??You are claiming that the reason you, Philip, believe that the Bible is inerrant is because you believe that one of the stories in the Bible is true. We are simply pointing out that you cannot logically use one story out of many in the Bible and then point to the rest of the Bible and say "See? None of this works unless this one story is true, so it is all true, except for the Old Testament."Can't you see how you have to do some gymnastics, logically, to get to where you are?

quote:

---

--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.

---

You play fast and loose with the definition of science; http://www.skepdic.com/science.html"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."Explain to me again how your muddled musings fit this definition.

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)

---

See my definition of science above, and explain to me how God, as a phenomena, is testable.Besides, "conclusive faith" isn't science, because science doesn't rely on faith, nor is it ever considered to be "conclusive".If you cannot think of any evidence which could ever sway you from your "theories", then you, by definition, are not doing science.

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. [QUOTE] Is it now? You propose to read minds, as well?

quote:

---

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.

---

So, can't show me a Honda that can reproduce itself, right?
You are making up stories about what you wish I thought about ID. Must be nice to be able to believe what you want to believe instead of dealing with the actual issues and their specifics.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-05-2002]

--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][b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]Somebody look up Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1

quote:

---

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

---

Carl Sagan didn't write this definition, but it does come from a Skeptic's site."Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods hich 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."

quote:

---

--Presently, just how logically cohered to scientific reasoning and methods are you, Shraf?

---

Um, I understand the scientific method as well as most science-minded people in this forum, and far, far better than the public at large.Why do you ask?

quote:

---

Can one parsimoniously limit scientific deduction to mere ?seeable? events.

---

Yes, one can limit science in that scientific observations must be repeatable and not purely subjective.

quote:

---

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?

---

Are you talking about the scientific method here?I think that nature is beautiful, and the scientific method, with all of its important and useful restrictions, is the best way we have to understand nature.

quote:

---

--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.

---

What data? I haven't seen any data.(If you have to put the word "hypothesis" in quotes, what is that supposed to tell me about the quality of your science, hmmm?)Yes, you are right, I am extremely biased towards good science and extremely biased against poor scholarship and religious/political agendas.

quote:

---

Your superfluity of hand-waving responses seems to betray extreme uncertainty and extreme bias in this regard.

---

I'll just ignore that, because it isn't true and is a "I know you are but what am I" kind of response.

quote:

---

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?

---

Um, you are confused. You said that without taking the Bible literally, it is reduced to being 'merely' a list of ethical fables. I then said that this book has been a major influence on culture and society in all of Western civilization. Are you denying that the Bible has been very influential to Western culture??BUT, since you bring up all of those bad cultural things (all happening in a very, very Christian country, the US of A), let me give you a little info on them:Secular humanism--Yep, those Humanists, they are really taking over. No religious holidays any more, and look at the Presidents! They can't be seen in Church without public outcry, and they don't swear into office with their HAND ON A BIBLE any more, either! Roving gangs of Secular Humanists committing crimes everywhere!divorce--bold emphasis added by me: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=C"Surprisingly, the Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. Nationally, 29% of all Baptist adults have been divorced. The only Christian group to surpass that level are those associated with non-denominational Protestant churches: 34% of those adults have undergone a divorce. Of the nation?s major Christian groups, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorced individuals (21%). People who attend mainline Protestant churches, overall, experience divorce on par with the national average (25%).Among non-Christian groups the levels vary. Jews, for instance, are among those most likely to divorce (30% have), while atheists and agnostics are below the norm (21%). Mormons, renowned for their emphasis upon strong families, are no different than the national average (24%).sodomy--If you don't follow the OT law against wearing garments with mixed fibers, I'm not sure why you are so against sex. What is immoral about sodomy if it is between consenting adults? I mean, really, why do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes? Seems rather intrusive and kind of wierd to me.pedophilia--Do you actually believe that pedophelia began with Western civilization? It has been around as long as rape and beating up women.

quote:

---

quote: by Shraf
Oh, and your comment about Hatian Voodoo and "the Devil" just shows that you believe in the Dvil, 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 stand corrected, but again, what does this have to do with anything?

quote:

---

--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?

---

I'm sorry, but you really haven't done anything like what you desribe.Try fewer big words and sermonizing and more answering the problems with your ideas which put to you.

quote:

---

--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.)

---

What banish list?

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?

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 Philip:

--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.

---

I don't recall the Old Testiment having much to say about Christ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--(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):

---

I have yet to see any evidence that suggests intelligent design. Care to show me some?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
[b]

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.[/QUOTE]

​

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?

​

quote:

---

--(2) In nature (cosmos): The observed data on all cosmic levels suggests ?creation ID?,?curse?, and ?redemption?/?restoration?,

---

​

So says you. What, am I supposed to just believe you because you say something is so? Gimme a break.

​

quote:

---

that is inexcusable for denying such a nature on empirical grounds.

---

​

OK, tell us how we can tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that arose through natural means.

​

Unless you can do that, you are promoting the ol' God of the Gaps Argument.

​

quote:

---

Again, I thought I made that clear on this thread (I even gave hundreds of empirical observations of such on this very thread):

---

​

You thought wrong.

​

quote:

---

--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?

---

​

You might have said that, but then you seemed to change your tune and list divorce as evidence of the immoral Western culture, led astray by Secular Humanism.

​

[QUOTE](--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][/B]

---

Now you are babbling in order to avoid answering my direct questions.This is becoming a waste of my time.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[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.

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

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.I think.You consider the Bible inerrant because of your subjective, relavatory, religious experience, not because of any objective, independant, factual evidence.While I do not share your convictions, but as they are purely religious, I have no opinion one way or the other.But why, then, do you constantly try to bring science into your justifications for your religious belief?You mix them both together as if these ways of knowing were conducted in exactly the same way. They couldn't be more different, and I think you know it.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

But why, then, do you constantly try to bring science into your justifications for your religious belief?

---

I do (most creationists, ‘religious’, etc. don’t). Science modifies/enhances/refines/supports/etc. my faith/biases/hypotheses/theories/etc. (If I don’t do it, who will?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

You mix them both together as if these ways of knowing were conducted in exactly the same way. They couldn't be more different, and I think you know it.

---

--I realize they are different, yet complimentary. Not diametrically opposed, just different. I do have ‘dissonance’ in my conscience regarding ‘mechanisms’, which is why I post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--A ‘cold’ yet ‘hellish’ outer darkness is seen to inundate >99% of universe. Temperatures are near absolute zero. No life-forms are detectable therein.

---

Not detected does not mean not existent. That's like my claiming there are no lions 'cause i can't see them from my house.

quote:

---

--Science and mathematics (to a great extent) appear useless in such a void.

---

Really? Maybe you should inform all the scientists and mathematicians.

quote:

---

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’).

---

And?

quote:

---

1. Lower skies manifest violent meteorological instability.

---

I repeat. And?

quote:

---

Universal expanse and expansion detectable as orderly:

---

Please please please make an argument.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wow! Now that is an imagination.

quote:

---

2. Innumerable vegetations/fruits decay:
--Rotting, decaying, burning, etc.

---

Gee. Stuff dies. That's proof.

quote:

---

--Many grains threaten extinction if neglected by human farming.

---

I am currently discussing this with someone else. Take a look.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=27&p=20

quote:

---

1. Powerful land boundaries/masses

---

You seem to be arguing that the planet was designed for us because we can exist on it and make use of it. That is backwards. We can survive on the planet cause that's the environment we've got. If we couldn't survive here we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

---

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.

---

This supports ID?

quote:

---

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.

---

This is just silly. God designed the universe so that we can have clocks? Please.Ok. I can't take any more of this. Lets skip down some shall we?

quote:

---

--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.

---

This supports ID? That is one scary intelligence.

quote:

---

B.) Songs of ‘deliverance’ heard among humans.

---

Are you sure this isn't due to the actions of Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Breed, Shiva, Baron Samedi, or aliens?

quote:

---

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.

---

...more consistent with the personality of a raging psychopath.... [QUOTE]

quote:

---

--Are not books are analogous to telescopes:

---

uhhh..... no.

quote:

---

they enable you to focus upon specific events, physical and/or metaphysical.

---

Those specific events being the opinions in the minds of the authors and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the world outside that mind, except where th author points to reproducible observation.

quote:

---

The Bible addresses this metaphysical event, apriori.

---

Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible addresses this metaphysical event, but that doesn't mean he's right. You can point to hundreds of book which address ethic and morality, but I don't see what that has to do with suggesting ID.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, did you miss the whole point of inclusion of my data-observations? They merely pointed out the nature of the ID, not proving the ID itself. They were in response to Shraf’s objections that there were, essentially no empirical-observations to support the NATURE of an ID.Albeit, I totally agree with you that so much of the cosmic observed data appears sarcastically and vicariously ‘CURSED’ and unworthy of any merely arbitrary beneficent creationist ID model. (I.e., an observed universe which seems (for present non-Saganistic purposes) mere vanity and vexation, accept for providing us a framework for ‘seasons, days, years’ (clocks), etc.).ID is proved/suggested in other threads (i.e., by ‘cause-effect’ logic, ICs, delicate interdependent bio-/cosmic- complexities, kantian logic, parsimony-logic, etc.) and is not even discussed here. Again it’s the nature of the ID, which is so neglected by Creationists, that I’ve addressed.The hypothesis I worked up is in another thread entitled: The Nature of ID Necessarily Christian? This thread contains the Hypothesis, Methods and Materials, Data-observations (which you just critiqued), Results, and Conclusion/Discussion. Rather then belaboring you to look it up, I will presently give you the rest.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:
All creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal his sons. Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God’s curse, but because of him (Christ) that subjected the same in hope. All creation anticipates the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Rom. 8.19-22 NLT Bible and KJV Bible). The whole creation groans in pain together until now and shows the effects a ‘travailing’/’vexed’ creation that is ‘longing’ (hoping) for a ‘restoration’ and is presently effected by renewal to varying extents.
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 marks of such redeeming events appear almost omnipresent at this time.
This hypothetical underlying creation mechanism is, in all its essence, the science of a Christ-Crucified-and-Risen Lord. To reject it as ‘non-scientific’, ‘beyond science’, ‘purely religious thinking’, etc. does not invalid it from further scientific inquiry i.e., in the same way that ‘evolutionism’, that misnomer for mutationalism, does not invalidate it from ongoing scientific inquiry.
Perhaps an infinite number of additional ‘redemptive’ observations in our sciences could be found corresponding with an infinite number of ‘sin-cursed’ ones. Yet, there would continue to be a great variability of redemption throughout, as demonstrated above.
This proposed mechanism does appear consistent the ex-nihilo creationist model (‘something out of nothing’). Many doubtless, may suggest it supports the ‘theistic’ ‘evolutional’ model of the creation as well. Many will reject the hypothesis outright. Such a mechanism seems necessary, however, for every creationist, whether Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, etc., to justify his belief in an all-benign ID model.