Biblical Inerrancy

by Francois 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  arniem

  Farkel
  janH
  If I gave too breif a description on your theory of evolution I,m sorry. If you cannot handle such a short summary I do not know what to say. Is it not true the theory states that possibly a lightning strike on water created a living organism which became an omebea (sic) which grew legs , crawled on shore and on and on until everything on earth evolved to what it is now. If I am in error , I challenge you to tell us exactly what you think did occur then (in a breif summary) Thanks...(the dim-wit Mensa 163)
• 

  arniem

  To all the Bible un-believers
  If the Bible is not true and there is no God I suppose I will end up a piece of dead meat in the ground, no harm done
  However if it is true,I expect to end up in heaven, I will look for folks such as janH and Farkel, I hope to find them there
  as well.
• 

  ianao

  arniem & JanH:

  Both of you derive your cognance of how things come about by handwritten books.

  All this silly arguing back and forth about creation vs. evolution is getting nowhere. Both of you have the choice of how to excercise your thinking instinct. One considers the writings to be inspired, the other considers the writings to be intellectually sound.

  arniem: I would love to hear your responses to JanH's previous posts re: Biblical mathematical errors.
• 

  arniem

  ianao
  I will re-read janH's latest reply on numerical errors and get back to you
• 

  arniem

  ianao
  janH was right.....in numbers 33-39 there is an error of 300. My apologies to janH.
  I use the same NIV translation he quoted from. A sub-note claims some septuagint
  manuscripts state 8300 (instead of 8600) and was a copying error. I do not like
  arguments such as this because now we would require all the original manuscripts
  laid out in front of us to compare them. They of course are not accessable to us
  and besides , I take the position there should be no errors in any of the original
  writings and thus I should not have the option of "choosing the ones" that suit
  only my view. I concede
• 

  jelly

  Hello arniem,

  I just wanted to chip in and say I liked you posts, I don’t agree with all of what you say but I do agree with some and I like to see the different viewpoints. And now I am going to share mine:

  I believe that the bible was never intended to be a science book so if things in the bible are not scientifically accurate to me it proves nothing. The reason for this is you have to assume intent, you have to assume that the writer intended to write a piece that was scientifically accurate and not metaphor to determine that there was an error.

  Think of Jesus, he spoke of many things that were not true historical events but were a 'truth' in that they conveyed a message, like the rich man and Lazarus. In short Jesus used metaphor to convey a message. I believe that the bible contains a great deal of metaphor because I believe its purpose was not to spill out facts but to teach moral lessons.

  [list=1]

• So when fundies try to prove the existence of God by pointing out scriptures in the bible that were ahead of their time I roll my eyes.


• So when an Atheist tries to prove the non-existence of God by pointing out the scriptures in the bible that are in error I roll my eyes.


• As far as the question of if the bible has errors in it or not I don’t know


• As far as whether it even matters if the bible is errant I don’t know

I have a great deal of respect for Jesus and the moral code he taught, I think the goal of the bible, its purpose in being written was to teach us this moral code. And as far as that goal the bible is capable of doing that, religions are not but the bible is.

Jelly

JanH I have a question for you, did the Jewish people at that time even have a decimal system that the concept of pie could be conveyed in? You seem to have read a lot about the history of the time.