Johnny Skeptic

Fundamentalist Christians sometimes use this unfair trick that you have used. You are fallaciously attempting to make it incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a contradiction, but it is not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a contradiction. Since inerrantists asserted first that the Bible is inerrant, it is up to them to defend inerrancy. If Muslims said that the Koran is inerrant, it would not be up to you to prove a contradiction. It would be up to Muslims to reasonably prove that the Koran is inerrant. If I told you that I had a flying pig, it would not be up to you to disprove my claim. It would be up to me to prove my claim. Whether you like it or not, you are the claimant.

Regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, why do you assume that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? Possibly because it appeals to your emotions to do so. Why must God be like you want him to be?

Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts? After all, he refused to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message. Inerrant texts could only be valuable if they were used. It is doubtful that God would be interested in providing some Christians with inerrant texts, and refuse to provide hundreds of millions of other people with no texts at all. That would be like developing a cure for cancer, making it available to some people, and refusing to give it to hundreds of millions of other people.

Do you believe that the earth is young? If so, upon what evidence do you base your claim?

Octavia

Split out of the geological discussion "The age of the Earth" in S&S and sent to BC&H.

Clouseau

How many more times will inerrancy be confused with fundamentalism (literalism)?

Clouseau

Can you provide an example, please?

Roger Pearse

As long as the strawman is convenient, I imagine.

Is it really sensible to try to refute the bible by showing that some current scientific theory contradicts one way of reading the bible? Aren't we tied in this to some theological idea? We all have an idea that the universe and its evolution may only be amenable to a mathematical representation. If we presume that this is correct, then under this theory the Creator of the universe is forced to write a book of instructions for his creatures in mathematical symbols that no-one can understand for 99% of the history of the world.

But I can certainly, as a less than divine being, imagine writing a book of instructions for beings one step up from monkeys, which would certainly be inspired by me and reflect my wishes. Nor would I feel the slightest need in so doing to write to answer such objections. Would any of us?

Never mind the speculative theology implicit in all this as to in what manner the bible is supposed to be inspired. How on earth do we test that? Let's stick to what we do know and can test.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Merlin

No trick.
There is no reason for either of us to *prove* anything, unless one wishes to persuade the other.
I do not wish to convince or persuade you, so I have no burden to prove or justify my belief.

You, likewise have no burden to prove anything unless you feel a need to persuade me to change my position.


I feel no need to disprove your map of reality, or your flying pig.

What difference does it make what God says about homosexuals? Or adultery, or even my being 'unclean' for 7 days after my period?
How does it relate to inerrancy?

I'm not sure how that relates.
Can you expand on your thoughts?


There is a cure.
But I still don't see how it relates.

No. But again I fail to follow your reasoning.

Merlin

Sure.
Many Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 or so years old based on what the Bible says in Genesis.
Maybe it is. I doubt it though.
Anyway, the Bible doesn't actually say the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

WishboneDawn

I made this assumption for the longest time. Then a great blog post by a baptist who was an inerrantist but not a literalist smacked me upside the head.

Dean Anderson

Well, it does say that Adam was created 6,000(ish) years ago, and it does say that Adam was the first man, and it does say that the first man was created on the sixth day of creation...

Merlin

Not quite.
But that's my point.