So you suffer from the same disease as Tradernik... Now that is classic, clearly stupidity and misery loves company... Hell, why not go all the way and talk about your real feelings... ROTFLMAO...
OK, archaeology is a science of sorts, but lack of proof isn't proof to the contrary; it's just a vague indicator of probability or possibility of the contrary. Examining internal logical consistency is certainly worthwhile but inconsistencies can always be explained away by way of extraneous material and modifications over the centuries. I'm inclined to agree that it's hard to defend the Bible as inerrant but there's always some spin that can be put on the situation to explain logical inconsistencies. How about: "The Bible" is the Word of God; contained in our standard bibles, mixed in with the modifications and additions, is the original message from God and this original message is the true "Bible" and it's this true Bible that is inerrant. The reader just has to figure out what in the standard bible is of the true Bible.
The more specifically the believer defines his God, the more difficulty he's going to have in justifying his definition, but we live in a universe of potential 'evidence'. Supporting evidence can be found to justify almost any belief, including the God of the Bible. Yeah, that's agood one: Is there a need for first cause to existence as we know it? Very big question. Difficult to deal with because of the difficulties in conceptualizing. Gotta leave for a while. Good luck, Hans
Missed this one earlier. Sure, anything I say is just my opinion. By all means - refute what I say and I'll change my opinion. Are you aware of any explanation that's consistent with logic and/or natural law?
You have to define what constitutes the proof that it is wrong - a definition that most reasonable people would accept. For example, would chronological inconsistencies prove it wrong?
In other words, nowhere in the Bible is the problem assessed accurately, though it's contributors pretend to assess it. Not knowing what the problem is, it is unable to offer a solution, that is, salvation. What is the Bible for? If it is for confusing the issue, it is inerrant. It is, for the most part, a collective blog relating to creation myth, tribal mythology, dreams, oracles, laws, poetry, anecdotes, psychic phenomena, op ed, and tribal chronicles. It reflects a darkened mind with occasional rays of light shining through. It stumbles onto the truth by accident...a sentence here, a parable there. It could have been written from the rantings of a madman lying upon a psychiatrist's couch under hypnosis. It reflects the collective unconscious...the desire to attack, and the desire to be men, whatever the hell that means. Collectively, the writers do not know what the problem is, because they are part of the problem. The fact that the editors assembled such a mixed up hodgepodge of material shows that they too are part of the problem. Finally, the readers are part of the problem, equating truth with age-of-document and other equally insane points of reference. As a scholar, you do best to fade the Bible like a good trader would fade a losing trading system. If the Bible says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", you can be sure that God did not create the heavens and the earth, nor is there such a thing as a beginning. If it is called a "Holy" Bible, you can be sure it is an unholy idol. Such is the darkness enshrined within the dusty pages of this graven oracle. What are it's fruits? Hundreds of sects. Ages of arguing. And row upon row of graves. Re: Genesis. If you read it and believe it...YOU WILL DIE! If you think for a minute that God banished Adam you have absolutely no understanding of God whatsoever. If you tie into the same psychology as the Adam of Genesis, YOU WILL DIE! Let the insane ideology of Genesis bite you and you will die slowly of it's venom. The God of the Bible is not your freind. It is NOT God. The Bible is not an accurate description of God. It mocks the true God. And it will kill the body of anyone who takes it seriously. The world, believe it or not, is a kind of "salvation". It is the mind's answer to a percieved problem. It was made to solve a problem. It does not really offer salvation, rather, it makes the situation worse. Likewise, the Bible offers a kind of salvation. But it's offerings are no more valid than this world. offered by the same kind of thinking that makes this world. And as they say, "If you always think what you've always thought, you'll always get what you always got". Jesus
Hans (earlier) > .... there are no explanations for the existence >of the Universe that make any more sense >than the God explanation. Hans: >By all means - refute what I say and I'll >change my opinion. Everyone looks at the world in their own way. The Fairy Being in the sky explanation make so little sense *to me*, that *almost* anything else ties or rises above. I wouldn't expect that you nor I could "refute" each others positions due to the condition of sentence #1. *For me*, evolution makes far more "sense" as origin of the species than does the one you've picked -- but remember, I don't claim for a moment that I know or even really suppose the origin of the species. I do find evidence for some, and near zippo for others ... and that's about as far as I'm willing to commit. If you want an exchange with someone who thinks they know, I'm not that person. JB
In my opinion there's no need for you to preface everything you present as only your opinion; anything said by anyone is merely an expression of that person's understanding. It's inefficient to add this qualifier to every utterance. The thread title "Is the Bible inerrant?" invites discussion of all that concerns the Bible's credibility. The very first theme of the Bible is an explanation for the coming into being of the World. The options I was referring to were pertaining to the possible explanations for the being of the Universe. The Universe would have to be in some form or other before it could evolve into anything else. I state that I ( in all humility ) can only think of 3 possible scenarios for the existence of the Universe: 1) the Universe has always existed ( in some form or other ); 2) The Universe came from nothing or from a series of somethings the first of which came from nothing; 3) The Universe was supernaturally generated. I don't advocate a Great Fairy cosmogony but do suggest that the concept of a supernatural being as originator of the Universe is on an equal footing with either of the other options in terms of possibility given that they are all fantastic explanations, all defying logic and/or common sense. I wasn't asking you to pretend that you know the answer; I was just asking if you can come up with possible alternatives to the 3 options I suggest. If your experience has disposed you to find the God explanation unacceptable I wouldn't presume to argue the validity of your preferences in this matter. I don't know any more than anybody else what the truth might be; that's why I call myself an agnostic. I'm just playing God's advocate ( probably unconvincingly ) in this thread for the sake of debate. No offence, Hans
There are other options: 4) The universe doesn't exist. It's all an illusion. 5) Our mind is the universe itself - it's the screen on which God projects the image of the universe for us to see. 6) The universe once existed but no longer does. What we see and experience is merely an echo of that past existence. 7) It's bioengineers all the way down...
Great! And I'll bet you have a million more of these. Proud of you, JB3. At least you're making a sincere effort.