Biblical Inerrancy

by Francois 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mustang

  FRANCOISE,

  Everybody seems to have gone to all manner of scientific exposition here. I am sticking to the origianl question and NONE OTHER.

  I scanned all the replies and nobody came up with this one, so here goes.

  In some obscure book on the HISTORY of mathematics, it was mentioned that the Hebrews didn't really consider fractions as very real. (The Egyptians, on the other hand did some clever things with them. But that didn't rub off on the Israelites.) So, as a sneaky shortcut, the Hebrews used an INSCRIBED HEXAGON to work their cirular requirements. There are 6 radii in such a geometric construction. And a diameter is twice the radius (D = 2 * R). (6/2 =3.) So three diametric lengths of string gets the approximate circumference. It seemed to work in their constructions, as a very pragmatic method of doing things.

  I'm also emailing you as you mentioned, but I believe the thread escaped the original question, but not necessarily the intention.

  Mustang
• 

  Carmel

  arniem,

  Think for a moment that you were an alien visiting earth for the first time and you had a representative of each of the worlds major religions try to convince you what was "reality". By what standard would you judge the veracity of each. When all of them have such similar stories to tell about their founder, each with a little twist that could qualify them as "unique" yet all basically giving the same moral and ethical message.

  Now compare that with the disadvantage we have of being emersed into a particular culture with all the trappings that distort how we see reality and what is "logical" vs what is not! How you going to know whether any of them are "true" or only one? Or is it possible that there is a truth that escapes all of them? Is there only a choice between being one of them or atheist? Are there other paradigms to consider? What construct do we have of the "god" of our imaginations that has to be so in line with our own prejudices that we fit like hand and glove, no pain, just our own personal comfort zone god!!

  Cheers and sorry for rambling

  carmel
• 

  oanai

  arneim:

  Thanks for all the responses. The research you've done looks great.

  An Observation:

  You as a creationist have more in common with an evolutionist than you think. I've noticed in your previous posts that you make many postulations (sp?) regarding the Bible. (Not unlike the scientific process a theory goes through before it is accepted by mainstream scientists.)

  At least you are both human.
• 

  rem

  It is sad when people decide to criticize something which they don't have even a fundamental understanding of.
  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to do with a supposed lightening strike creating life from non life. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution has been observed and is a fact that is supported by the fossil record and by modern DNA discoveries. Evolution is the study of the common origin of life (on Earth) and the mechanism for the genetic variation found in all life. There is absolutely no question about evolution, other than from a subculture of uninformed fundamentalist Christians.

  Some people here are making ignorant claims about science and theories. I suggest you do some research on the subject before you make uninformed comments, because you are doing a disservice not only to yourself, but to other lurkers who might not know any better. Theories are basically as solid as fact in the world of science. They have to be because they make predictions. If the predictions are not accurate, then the theory is useless and is thrown out or modified until it fits the observations. The Theory of Evolution is used to explain the mechanisms of the Fact of evolution. The Theory of Relativity is used to mathematically explain physics. These theories have withstood the test of time - and they are extremely accurate. This should be obvious to everyone since humans have been able to send men to the moon and cure diseases with the aide of these theories.

  Let's not be so quick to criticize things which we don't even understand. This shows a closed mind which is either too lazy to look at the facts, or too stubborn to change in the face of facts.

  rem
• 

  Francois

  Arniem, you stated "If the Bible is not true and there is no God..." and that reveals an awful lot about your thinking. Those two ideas don't necessarily go together. The bible could be a hoax, or at least not completely true AND God exist at the same time.

  It seems not to have occured to you that God created everything and that evolution is his technique. Denying that possibility means that God is limited to your imagination, and a limited God is not God at all. Think about it.

  Otherwise, all the posters but one did indeed get off the point. The thickness of the bowl, whether the Isrealites had good math, etc. are all off the point. If the bible was inspried by God, he certainly knew about Pi and could have said so - and if the bible is as accurate as Fundys claim - he would have had to say so in his telling the tale of the dimensions of the bowl. You folks are mixing up what the Isrealites were capable of with what God is capable of. You say the bible is inerrant out of one side of your mouth, then make excuses for why it can't be out of the other side.

  But don't mind me, I'm just proving a point about you to myself via allowing you to witness against yourselves. And you all did a FINE job.

  Francoise
• 

  dreamer

  arniem,

  You said in reply to my earlier post:

  Are you able to give absolute proof that we desended from protohomonids?

  I do not, nor do I claim to have, proof for evolution. I was merely stating that you had a common misconception of what evolutionary theory states. There are lots of so called 'proofs' on the web if you are really interested.

  You also said:

  You want my bible to offer proof but you are unwilling to let me ask for your proof?

  Firstly:

  I am not sure it is your bible. You seem very defensive: I am not attacking what you believe.

  Secondly:

  I was only stating the evolution theory. I do not subscribe, nor do I claim to be able to prove, either creation or evolution as they are currently understood.

  Hope this clears things up...