Timetospend

Ah, I see that you have rehabilitated your earlier answer.

I suppose that I could go down the road to point out places where the Bible has shown value, but that would not prove it inerrant.

Frankly, if one claims to be an atheist, then I do not see how the inerrancy of the Bible can ever be proved to that person. To start with, there are about 4000 times in it where the Bible says that God speaks.

I think that the inerrancy of the Bible can only be seen by a Christian who trusts in God. Then the God can speak through it to the Christian.

As you seemed to agree earlier, reconciliation is always possible for supposed Biblical errors. I do not think that a true Biblical error in the original autograph can be proved. Of course, showing that supposed reconciliations do not necessarily follow does not prove that the Bible is inerrant either.

So not sure of the type of response for which you are searching.

Thanks,

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Timetospend: What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this thread? If you were actually interested in following the evidence wherever it leads, you would be willing to follow it if it led to God sending everyone to hell. It is a virtual given that you would not do that. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would hope that it was false, even though you now hope that it is true, and you most certainly would not promote it even though you now promote it. This proves that your beliefs are based entirely upon emotional self-interest.

Timetospend

If pigs could fly, I might decide that investing in pork bellies is a bad idea. On the other hand, if they could fly, the price of pork bellies would rise; As such, perhaps if I could find someone who knew how to corral them in a cost-effective way, perhaps I would invest in them. The bottomline is that I do not know whether I would invest in pork bellies given that I do not understand the factors involved if pigs could fly since obviously they cannot.

Likewise with your question or any hypothetical question. You propose that the Bible be something that it is not, and then ask if I would treat it the same way as I do now. Would I follow the Bible if it was not the Bible? Not sure how to answer the question.

Ask your question concerning what the Bible does say.

Thanks,

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Timetospend: What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this thread? If you wish to discuss inerrancy, then please participate in the thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "Are there any inerrantists at this forum?" If you wish to discuss the character of God, then please participate in the thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "God is corrupt." If you wish to discuss Bible contradictions, then please participate in the thread at this forum that is titled "What are your favorite Bible contradictions?"

Johnny Skeptic

My arguments were simple enough, but since you did not understand them, let me try again. It is my position that it is not actually EVIDENCE that appeals to you, but WHAT THE EVIDENCE PROMISES. It is simply a matter of emotional self-interest. If the Bible had originally said that God will send everyone to hell, you would hope that it is false, even though you now hope that it is true, and you most certainly would not promote it, even though you now promote it. The number of Gospels and the number of eyewitnesses would not have made any difference to you. This proves that your beliefs are based entirely upon emotional self-interest.

My word, even if a being showed up in person, claimed to be the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, spoke a new galaxy into existence, and said that he planned to send everyone to hell, you would hope that he was telling a lie, even though based upon much less convincing evidence, you now hope that the Bible is true.

Hypothetical arguments are useful tools for exposing inconsistencies and illogical arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

Timetospend

Ok. The problem that I had with your hypothetical question was that it changed the nature of God. As such, I did not know how to answer.

From my viewpoint, it is the evidence that is important. Unfortunately, the evidence that I find most convincing is not something that I can put in written form that you would buy. You would have to see it for yourself, and I am not capable of arranging that.

Thanks,