Sauron

No, it is not. Please note the parts in red, above. They indicate what I said. A statement like "for the most part" cannot be used to support a position of infallibilty, because "for the most part" indicates that there is some smaller part which is not historically or archaeologically accurate.

And as you are probably not aware, most bible scholars divide the Torah out from the historical books, and from the prophets. The Hebrews have called this "Tanakh", which is a reverse anagram that stands for "Torah - Neviim - Ketubiim", or "Law / Prophets / Books" The small chunk of the Smithsonian statement I quoted (above) addresses the reliability of the Torah, and especially genesis. And that section is rightly questioned in its accuracy. Once you move into the period of the kings, however "Ketubiim", the historical reliability of the bible increases dramatically. But it never becomes infallible, because even in that period, the bible contains mistakes. And the Neviim, Prophets, also contain their fair share of mistakes (Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, specifically).

But your position, as an inerrantist, is that the ENTIRE bible is perfect and infallible. The two chunks of Smithsonian text show otherwise - the first chunk addressing the Torah, and the second chunk addressing the kingly period.

The red sections say otherwise.

And that obvious fact would be apparent to anyone who wasn't rushing to quickly respond without carefully reading first. Maybe you should slow down and read what people write in their posts.

hatsoff

No, it's not. Just because portions of the Bible are true and/or useful for historical study doesn't mean the whole thing is inerrant or inspired, which was Sauron's point. And he is correct, and you are incorrect.

EDIT: As Sauron just pointed out, your quotation says precisely the opposite of what you're claiming. It's pretty ridiculous that you would even use it.

Coleslaw

And there in a nutshell, we have the difference between the scholarly mindset and that of the apologist. Diana sees something funny about the URL of a statement she agrees with and decides to investigate further, even if by doing so she risks finding out that the official statement isn't one.

That is objectivity and intellectual honesty.

mdd344

Diana,
You can keep on if you like, but your making no headway with me. The ONLY people on this site who cite sources are a few. I mean a very few. Most do not. So I am now held to another standard, which few others are required to meet? Why, that'd be par for the course wouldn't it. I can't talk about evolution because I know only what I have read. But others can talk about the Bible all day and its theological terms without ever having understood it ('kingdom' ring a bell with you?). Those few who do cite sources do so because that is their profession and common practice. They are used to doing it. Were I submitting a paper to a university or the like, I would use endnotes, bibliography, etc. But this is NOT a university. And it is my belief that citing my sources via (parenthesis) was MORE than adequate. If you want to enforce the rules about sources cited, then not only will you be off the board but so will most others.

Your up on logic, right? What is that fallacy called where one attacks another person individually? You know, like using derogative terms, etc. Surely you know that one, right?

diana

And...we're back to Affirming the Consequent.

Ever read historical fiction? Tons of it is right on target. That doesn't make the whole thing dependable.

With the Bible, you have the additional problem that if anything in it can be shown to be spurious, it destroys any claim to divine revelation.

P1: If a book is divine, it would be without error.
P2: The bible is without error.
Therefore, the bible is divine.

If A then B; If not B, then not A. That is, if the book has errors, then the book is not divine. However, the argument as I've outline above commits the assumption that B->A; that is, it commits the fallacy Affirming the Consequent.

d

David B

Hmm. To simply say 'the bible is false' would certainly be an overstatement, but to point out the odd internal inconsistency, false prophesy, historical claim at odds with other historical and/or archaeological evidence, or claim that is out of touch with the geological record, the astronomical record, basic physics, well understood biology seems to me quite reasonable.


Well it's not surprising that people get disgusted, when you consider the damage that faith (not just christian faith) has done in its long and ignoble history.

David B (will accept that it can sometimes provide comfort, too)

mdd344

Sauron,
You stated, "But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. "

Okay, lets test objectivity. What percentage of archaeological evidence found related to the Bible agrees with the Bible.

What percentage doesn't?

And of that percentage that does not agree, how much of it is actually proven to be against the Bible? In other words, all the evidence that can be in is in, and it is conclusive?

From your remark, my impression is that tons of evidence disagrees with the Bible. If that is not what you meant, then the above will help me see it.

hatsoff

First of all, this thread is killing me. I just need to get that off my chest, otherwise I'm going to continue to experience uncontrollable fits of laughter.

Now, then...

Quite true. But we do need to be careful not to venture into the realm of absolutes.

Also true, but unfortunately those feelings of ill will, whether justified or not, can get in the way of peaceful discussion. And it is not limited to non-Christians, I know. But regardless of who is to blame, it is regrettable when that happens.

Coleslaw

What percentage of archeological evidence has to agree with the Bible in order for the Bible to be considered infallible? Would it not have to be 100%?

mdd344

Coleslaw,
I would suggest 100% only in cases where ALL the evidence is known. Archeology is, as one person called it, an art. Not an exact science.

For example, the Bible referred to Belshazzar. Some said he didn't exist. Yet, he was proven to exist by archeology. But had archeology never proved it, such would not prove he didn't exist.