fatpie42

Where does the bible disagree with science? I'm sorry but there is only a science vs religion debate if the religious side of the debate consists in Biblical literalists. But Biblical literalism takes Bible verses completely out of their original context (not to mention the fact that Genesis was written before people had an understanding of 'history'!).

Internal inconsistency is a bit of a more complicated issue, but I don't think the argument is very easy to hold for the simple reason that so much of it consists in interpretation.

Steven Avery

Zenaphobe, I'm simply pointing out two things.

a) the difficulty of establishing any methodology as actually neutral

b) the fact that the current "scientific" critical methodologies are decidedly not neutral (they would have no way to recognize an inerrant text) and in the textual aspect the current methodology will create the errancy for which the "scientist" is looking and desiring, ie. an endued errancy.

How you decide to view the Bible is your decision, however one should not declare an inaccurate (phoney) scientific "neutrality" if the methodology is as (2) above

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Doug Shaver

Shakespeare has never forced me to err or encouraged me to desire to do evil. Should I therefore consider him infallible?

Doug Shaver

Is there any possibility of your believing a methology to be neutral if it were to prove the Bible was errant?

Is that your "neutrality test"? It has to be able to prove that an inerrant text is inerrant?

Steven Avery

Doug, I didn't say that I had a "neutrality test". In fact, there may not be such a test possible, I'm not that much of a logician and theoretician.

We shouldn't always assume our methods are proper or sufficient for the task we claim for them. And a combination of source, redaction and textual criticism is about as un-neutral as you can get for the purpose we are discussing here.

Doug, to give a simple example... it seems obvious that there are methodologies that are designed to create an errant text, such as by abject overuse of lectio difficilior, thereby actually putting errors in the text against the historic Bible and against overwhelming manuscript evidence. ..... Then they "find" the very "errors" that they create ... it is simply wrong to call such stuff as "neutral".

Anyone who uses such methodologies and then trumpets them as "scientific" and therefore "neutral" is either deceiving themselves, or others, or both.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Amaleq13

How about a methodology that is applied uniformly to all ancient texts?

Steven Avery

Sure sounds reasonable. Do you have a proposed methodology that is truly "neutral", that does not presuppose or create errancy within the methodology itself ?

Chili

He was infallible, wasn't he? . . . and not just because we like him.

Avatar

That is not evidence...that is a story. A story that is not verified anywhere else outside of the Bible. There is no evidence that this event ever happend other than the Bible's say-so.

Unsupported assertion.
So it doesn't matter is someone is more moral than you...you're still the only one who gets the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card? Because, of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong...the Bible says so.
Since it's questionable that any of these miracles actually occurred, I wouldn't be surprised by that.
How about the Bible claiming one thing to be true when all available evidence says different?

mdarus

I think it would be a good thing to focus on a specific claim rather than generalites. What error have you found?