Panin said:glorydaz said:ProphetMark said:
Because it's written for the believers.
Like the parables, it requires spiritual discernmant.
Actually its written for unbelivers aswell, we where all unbelivers until we read it. But until you are born again, you are reading someone elses mail, that said, it is only the Holy SPirit that can ignite the word in the mind, heart, bones and marrow of an unbeliver and convert his soul.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Panin said:glorydaz said:Because it's written for the believers.
Like the parables, it requires spiritual discernmant.
Actually its written for unbelivers aswell, we where all unbelivers until we read it. But until you are born again, you are reading someone elses mail, that said, it is only the Holy SPirit that can ignite the word in the mind, heart, bones and marrow of an unbeliver and convert his soul.
Well said.
I always thought it worth noting that faith comes by hearing the Word.
It doesn't take as much effort...you can be standing in a crowd or driving down the road.
Unfortunately, too many of the churches across the land are not preaching the Word, but words that tickle the ears of man.
Amos 8:11 said:
glorydaz said:Panin said:glorydaz said:Because it's written for the believers.
Like the parables, it requires spiritual discernmant.
Actually its written for unbelivers aswell, we where all unbelivers until we read it. But until you are born again, you are reading someone elses mail, that said, it is only the Holy SPirit that can ignite the word in the mind, heart, bones and marrow of an unbeliver and convert his soul.
Well said.
I always thought it worth noting that faith comes by hearing the Word.
It doesn't take as much effort...you can be standing in a crowd or driving down the road.
Unfortunately, too many of the churches across the land are not preaching the Word, but words that tickle the ears of man.
[/quote:2j56s3xh]Amos 8:11 said:
I came to saving faith in Christ reading the word. I had a red letter bible, you know the ones with all the words jesus ever spoke recorded in red, well I read all the red letters in one day , this is what led me to salvation. I got baptised about a month later. 1991.
epistemaniac
Member
Re: A fair challenge
well you seem to presuppose that the Bible is errant, so now we inerrantists should automatically reject everything YOU say? Now everything YOU say is "ad hoc" and "merely" subjective because of YOUR presuppositions??? lol.... The fact that you even think you are objective (while those who disagree with you are "hopelessly" subjective lol) shows how young and naive that you really are. There are no brute uninterpreted "facts", they are all interpreted, but that does not necessarily mean that they (the interpretations) are therefore false. There are many reasons to suppose that the documents are in fact inerrant, you may not agree with them, but it doesn't follow from this that the reasons do not exist. One could just as easily say "there's no reason to suppose these documents are errant". But such dogmatism is hardly very convincing to you, is it? Now you know why your own dogmatism is not very convincing to others.
are you a professional historian wavy? just wondering what you think gives you the right to speak for all of them in such a dogmatic way....
all historians who are trying to get at the truth of a certain event definitely try to harmonize different accounts.... one would be a fool to totally disregard different accounts of the same event and then, if those accounts differ, to not try and reconcile them would be equally foolish....
blessings,
ken
wavy said:
well you seem to presuppose that the Bible is errant, so now we inerrantists should automatically reject everything YOU say? Now everything YOU say is "ad hoc" and "merely" subjective because of YOUR presuppositions??? lol.... The fact that you even think you are objective (while those who disagree with you are "hopelessly" subjective lol) shows how young and naive that you really are. There are no brute uninterpreted "facts", they are all interpreted, but that does not necessarily mean that they (the interpretations) are therefore false. There are many reasons to suppose that the documents are in fact inerrant, you may not agree with them, but it doesn't follow from this that the reasons do not exist. One could just as easily say "there's no reason to suppose these documents are errant". But such dogmatism is hardly very convincing to you, is it? Now you know why your own dogmatism is not very convincing to others.
are you a professional historian wavy? just wondering what you think gives you the right to speak for all of them in such a dogmatic way....
all historians who are trying to get at the truth of a certain event definitely try to harmonize different accounts.... one would be a fool to totally disregard different accounts of the same event and then, if those accounts differ, to not try and reconcile them would be equally foolish....
blessings,
ken
[/quote:1x21q749]Panin said:
I came to saving faith in Christ reading the word. I had a red letter bible, you know the ones with all the words jesus ever spoke recorded in red, well I read all the red letters in one day , this is what led me to salvation. I got baptised about a month later. 1991.[/quote:1x21q749]
Nice...I still have my red letter edition I got back in 1970. It's pretty bedraggled, but I'd feel naked without it. I, too, read Jesus' words first. :halo
epistemaniac
Member
granturissimus said:
just don't let your struggle pass by without doing the necessary work to resolve the issues... it can be easy to try and find difficulties with the faith, and it is totally normal to have questions, but failure to pursue those questions, to do the sometimes hard work at resolving the issues as best as you can, leads many persons to have a weak faith when all they would have to do it get up off their hind ends and do the leg work and study necessary to resolve their questions, again, as best as is possible. No matter what, there will still be questions. Not all your concerns will be exhaustively resolved, but thats ok.
I would just also add that a contradiction is a very very specific thing.... that some thing, a proposition, is stating that both A and non-A are true (or not true) at the exact same time and in the exact same relationship.... few if any of the difficulties in the Bible fall into this category, though there are indeed difficult passages to be sure....
also, some may be predisposed to think that there is no way to reconcile the passages in question, they have made their mind up ahead of time that this is the case, and thus they dismiss any attempts at reconciling the passages as 'arbitrary". But this is of course irrational. In fact, attempting to reconcile difficult passages is reasonable, and while the attempts will not likely satisfy the convinced skeptic, it is valuable nonetheless as it helps to build the faith of believers who are not predisposed to think, a priori, that all explanations of difficult passages are automatically relegated to being futile and arbitrary. If a skeptic wants to remain a skeptic, well then a person convinced against his will remains a skeptic still. As Norm Geisler states:
"THE BIBLE: DIFFICULTIES, YES! While the Bible is the Word of God and, as such, cannot have any errors , nonetheless, this does not mean there are no difficulties in it. However, as St. Augustine wisely noted, “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.†The mistakes are not in the revelation of God, but are in the misinterpretations of man.
The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of error in the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their mistakes fall into the following main categories.
Mistake 1: Assuming that the Unexplained Is Not Explainable.
No informed person would claim to be able to fully explain all Bible difficulties. However, it is a mistake for the critic to assume, therefore, that what has not yet been explained never will be explained. When a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, he does not give up further scientific exploration. Rather, he uses the unexplained as a motivation to find an explanation. No real scientist throws up her hands in despair simply because she cannot explain a given phenomenon. She continues to do research with the confident expectation that an answer will be found. And, the history of science reveals that her faith has been rewarded over and over again.
Scientists, for example, once had no natural explanation of meteors, eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Until recently, scientists did not know how the bumblebee could fly. All of these mysteries have yielded their secrets to the relentless patience of science. Neither do scientists know how life can grow on thermovents in the depths of the sea. But, no scientist throws in the towel and cries “contradiction!â€
Likewise, the Christian scholar approaches the Bible with the same presumption that what is thus far unexplained is not therefore unexplainable. He or she does not assume that discrepancies are contradictions. And, when he encounters something for which he has no explanation, he simply continues to do research, believing that one will eventually be found. In fact, if he assumed the opposite, he would stop studying. Why pursue an answer when one assumes there is none. Like his scientific counterpart, the Bible student has been rewarded for his faith and research. For, many difficulties for which scholars once had no answer have yielded to the relentless pursuit of truth through history, archaeology, linguistics, and other disciplines. For example, critics once proposed that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because there was no writing in Moses’ day. Now we know that writing was in existence a couple of thousand years or more before Moses. Likewise, critics once believed that the Bible was wrong in speaking of the Hittite people, since they were totally unknown to historians. Now, all historians know of their existence by way of their library that was found in Turkey. This gives us confidence to believe that the biblical difficulties that have not yet been explained have an explanation and that we need not assume there is a mistake in the Bible.
Mistake 2: Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Many critics assume the Bible is wrong until something proves it right. However, like an American citizen charged with an offense, the Bible should be presumed “innocent†until it is proven guilty. This is not asking anything special for the Bible, it is the way we approach all human communications. If we did not, life would not be possible. For example, if we assumed road signs and traffic signals were not telling the truth, then we would probably be dead before we could prove they were telling the truth. Likewise, if we assume food labels are wrong until proven right, we would have to open up all cans and packages before buying. And what if we presumed all the numbers on our currency were wrong? And what if we assumed all restroom signs were wrong! Well, enough is enough.
The Bible, like any other book, should be presumed to be telling us what the authors said and heard. Negative critics of the Bible begin with just the opposite presumption. Little wonder, then, that they conclude the Bible is riddled with error.
Mistake 3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God’s Infallible Revelation.
Jesus affirmed that the “Scripture cannot be broken†(John 10:35). As an infallible book, the Bible is also irrevocable. Jesus declared, “Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished†(Matt. 5:18, NIV ; cf. Luke 16:17). The Scriptures also have final authority, being the last word on all it discusses. Jesus employed the Bible to resist the tempter (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), to settle doctrinal disputes (Matt. 21:42), and to vindicate His authority (Mark 11:17). Sometimes a biblical teaching rests on a small historical detail (Heb. 7:4–10), a word or phrase (Acts 15:13–17), or even the difference between the singular and the plural (Gal. 3:16). But, while the Bible is infallible, human interpretations are not. The Bible cannot be mistaken, but we can be mistaken about the Bible. The meaning of the Bible does not change, but our understanding of its meaning does.
Human beings are finite, and finite beings make mistakes. That is why there are erasers on pencils, correcting fluid for typing, and a “delete†key on computers. And even though God’s Word is perfect (Ps. 19:7), as long as imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of God’s Word and false views about His world. In view of this, one should not be hasty in assuming that a currently dominant view in science is the final word on the topic. Prevailing views of science in the past are considered errors by scientists in the present. So, contradictions between popular opinions in science and widely accepted interpretations of the Bible can be expected. But this falls short of proving there is a real contradiction between God’s world and God’s Word, between God’s general revelation and His special revelation. In this basic sense, science and Scripture are not contradictory. Only finite, fallible human opinions about each can be contradictory....
Mistake 8: Assuming that a Partial Report is a False Report.
Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false. However, this is not so. If it were, most of what has ever been said would be false, since seldom does time or space permit an absolutely complete report. Occasionally the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways, or at least from different viewpoints, at different times. Hence, inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four Gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people, and sometimes even quote the same saying with different words. Compare, for example, Peter’s famous confession in the Gospels:
Matthew: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God†(16:16).
Mark: “You are the Christ†(8:29).
Luke: “The Christ of God†(9:20).
Even the Ten Commandments, which were “written with the finger of God†(Deut. 9:10), are stated with variations the second time God gave them (cf. Ex. 20:8–11 with
(nite: The biblical authors include a lawgiver (Moses), a general (Joshua), prophets (Samuel, Isaiah, et. al.), kings (David and Solomon), a musician (Asaph), a herdsman (Amos), a prince and statesman (Daniel), a priest (Ezra), a tax collector (Matthew), a physician (Luke), a scholar (Paul), and fishermen (Peter and John). With such a variety of occupations represented by biblical writers, it is only natural that their personal interests and differences should be reflected in their writings....)
Mistake 10: Assuming that Divergent Accounts Are False Ones.
Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not mean they are mutually exclusive. For example, Matthew (28:5) says there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection, whereas John informs us there were two (20:12). But, these are not contradictory reports. In fact, there is an infallible mathematical rule that easily explains this problem: wherever there are two, there is always one—it never fails! Matthew did not say there was only one angel. One has to add the word “only†to Matthew’s account to make it contradict John’s. But if the critic comes to the Bible in order to show it errs, then the error is not in the Bible, but in the critic.
Likewise, Matthew (27:5) informs us that Judas hanged himself. But Luke says that “he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out†(Acts 1:18). Once more, these accounts differ, but they are not mutually exclusive. If Judas hanged himself on a tree over the edge of a cliff and his body fell on sharp rocks below, then his entrails would gush out just as Luke vividly describes. (When Critics Ask)
cont
epistemaniac
Member
As far as the genealogy goes... here is some information that hopefully will be of help, though it should be noted that there are in fact many ideas regarding this biblical difficulty, from saying that Matthew traces Joseph's lineage while Luke deals with Mary's; to thinking that the idea of legal descent, physical descent and royal descent; :
"Abridgment is the general rule in biblical genealogies. Thus, for example, Matthew 1:8 omits three names between King Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). In Matthew 1:11 Matthew omits Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). Matthew’s goal is to reduce the genealogies to a memorable three sets of fourteen individuals, for fourteen is the number of “David,†D = 4, V or Hebrew waw = 6 and the last D = 4, for a total of 14.
But even more typical of the genealogies is Matthew 1:1, where “Jesus Christ†is said to be the “son of David,†who in turn is “the son of Abraham.†David lived about 1000 b.c. and Abraham about 2000 b.c. Similar huge leaps over intervening generations are also taking place in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. If one turns Matthew 1:1 around and puts it in the style of the prepatriarchal genealogies, it could read as follows: “And Abraham was 100 years old [at the time that he begat Isaac through whom his line continued to David], and he begat David. And David was 40 years old [an approximate date for when Solomon was born, through whom Jesus would come], and he begat Jesus Christ.†Thus the numbers of when these ancients had their firstborn function as the times when the line that was to come was given to them.
It is as if my father were one of these Very Important Persons (VIPs), and he had four sons, born when he was 100, 120, 140 and 160. Now let us suppose that it was my line, as the eldest in the family, that was the line through which Messiah was to come, and I was born when my father was 100. The Messiah would not come for another 1000 years, but it would be just as accurate, biblically speaking, to say that my father begat Messiah when he was 100. (Hard Sayings of the Bible; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch)
"LUKE 3:23—Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?
PROBLEM: Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23 (Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16 (Jacob). Which one is the right one?
SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt. 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38).
That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father ) to David’s son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12ff). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David’s son, Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.
Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed†(Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.â€
Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; cf. Luke 3:27) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke’s) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (3:26, 30).
The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:
Matthew-David-Rehoboam-Abijah-Asa-Jehosaphat-Jacob-Joseph-Mary-legal wife and legal father-Jesus
Luke-David-Nathan-Mattathah-Menana-Melea-Eliakim-Heli-Joseph-Mary lehal wife and legal husband-Jesus" (When Critics Ask, Norm Geisler)
As far as God being "sorry" that He had made man, this is an anthropomorphism. This fancy word just means that when an author of the bible writes about God, he or she does so from a human perspective, obviously, it can't be otherwise. So when speaking about such a transcendent being, our human language strains to describe an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent spiritual being. Whenever an author ascribes a human attribute to God, such as the "arm of the Lord, or speaks of God's "eye, since God does not literally possess these attributes, the author is using a literary technique. When the bible speaks of God regretting, or repenting, the author is looking at the situation (man's utter sinfulness and fallenness) and ascribes human emotion to God in order to convey how terrible the situation had become.
So for the difficulties you encounter, check out a good commentary, or books like When Skeptics Ask; When Critics Ask, When Cultists Ask all by Norm Geisler; or Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch; The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer. Remember that is highly highly unlikely that you will ever encounter a difficulty that has not already been thoroughly discussed and responded to, from a conservative perspective.
blessings,
ken
"Abridgment is the general rule in biblical genealogies. Thus, for example, Matthew 1:8 omits three names between King Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). In Matthew 1:11 Matthew omits Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). Matthew’s goal is to reduce the genealogies to a memorable three sets of fourteen individuals, for fourteen is the number of “David,†D = 4, V or Hebrew waw = 6 and the last D = 4, for a total of 14.
But even more typical of the genealogies is Matthew 1:1, where “Jesus Christ†is said to be the “son of David,†who in turn is “the son of Abraham.†David lived about 1000 b.c. and Abraham about 2000 b.c. Similar huge leaps over intervening generations are also taking place in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. If one turns Matthew 1:1 around and puts it in the style of the prepatriarchal genealogies, it could read as follows: “And Abraham was 100 years old [at the time that he begat Isaac through whom his line continued to David], and he begat David. And David was 40 years old [an approximate date for when Solomon was born, through whom Jesus would come], and he begat Jesus Christ.†Thus the numbers of when these ancients had their firstborn function as the times when the line that was to come was given to them.
It is as if my father were one of these Very Important Persons (VIPs), and he had four sons, born when he was 100, 120, 140 and 160. Now let us suppose that it was my line, as the eldest in the family, that was the line through which Messiah was to come, and I was born when my father was 100. The Messiah would not come for another 1000 years, but it would be just as accurate, biblically speaking, to say that my father begat Messiah when he was 100. (Hard Sayings of the Bible; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch)
"LUKE 3:23—Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?
PROBLEM: Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23 (Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16 (Jacob). Which one is the right one?
SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt. 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38).
That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father ) to David’s son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12ff). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David’s son, Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.
Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed†(Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.â€
Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; cf. Luke 3:27) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke’s) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (3:26, 30).
The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:
Matthew-David-Rehoboam-Abijah-Asa-Jehosaphat-Jacob-Joseph-Mary-legal wife and legal father-Jesus
Luke-David-Nathan-Mattathah-Menana-Melea-Eliakim-Heli-Joseph-Mary lehal wife and legal husband-Jesus" (When Critics Ask, Norm Geisler)
As far as God being "sorry" that He had made man, this is an anthropomorphism. This fancy word just means that when an author of the bible writes about God, he or she does so from a human perspective, obviously, it can't be otherwise. So when speaking about such a transcendent being, our human language strains to describe an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent spiritual being. Whenever an author ascribes a human attribute to God, such as the "arm of the Lord, or speaks of God's "eye, since God does not literally possess these attributes, the author is using a literary technique. When the bible speaks of God regretting, or repenting, the author is looking at the situation (man's utter sinfulness and fallenness) and ascribes human emotion to God in order to convey how terrible the situation had become.
So for the difficulties you encounter, check out a good commentary, or books like When Skeptics Ask; When Critics Ask, When Cultists Ask all by Norm Geisler; or Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch; The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer. Remember that is highly highly unlikely that you will ever encounter a difficulty that has not already been thoroughly discussed and responded to, from a conservative perspective.
blessings,
ken
Aaron the Tall
Member
I had been mulling over some of the concerns. Thanks Ken for putting my mulling to rest. I'll have to check out some of the books you recommended.
Re: A fair challenge
Except I don't presuppose this a priori. This can be known from actually studying the text. Which is why the following rambling block of text:
...is filled with straw men and can't be taken seriously. I'm decently sure inerrantists can (and do) offer reasons for thinking the bible is inerrant. Obviously I meant there are no good or valid reasons to think so. But your post is also flat out wrong and confused. Historians don't try to make all their sources say the same thing. You're confusing integrating all the evidence from the sources with harmonizing what all the sources say. The latter is not what historians do. Historians take the evidence and attempt a coherent portraiture in the process of reconstruction.
And no, I am not a historian. But I can cite multiple sources on the philosophy of history and historiography from those who are professional historians; I certainly don't know of any historian in the history of thought (saving, incidentally, religious apologists when dealing with their own religious texts!) whose methodology constitutes finding ingenious ways to force his sources to say the same thing, as you apparently do.
I have a proposal for you: Why don't you find me a historian--just one--whose methodology is to harmonize all his sources. Then give me one reason why we should presuppose the bible is inerrant, we'll evaluate its merits, and then we can see who's 'naive'. (honestly, I don't have much hope that you'll succeed when you cite the likes of Norman Geisler and find such arguments reasonable or convincing)
Good luck.
Finis,
Eric
epistemaniac said:
Except I don't presuppose this a priori. This can be known from actually studying the text. Which is why the following rambling block of text:
...is filled with straw men and can't be taken seriously. I'm decently sure inerrantists can (and do) offer reasons for thinking the bible is inerrant. Obviously I meant there are no good or valid reasons to think so. But your post is also flat out wrong and confused. Historians don't try to make all their sources say the same thing. You're confusing integrating all the evidence from the sources with harmonizing what all the sources say. The latter is not what historians do. Historians take the evidence and attempt a coherent portraiture in the process of reconstruction.
And no, I am not a historian. But I can cite multiple sources on the philosophy of history and historiography from those who are professional historians; I certainly don't know of any historian in the history of thought (saving, incidentally, religious apologists when dealing with their own religious texts!) whose methodology constitutes finding ingenious ways to force his sources to say the same thing, as you apparently do.
I have a proposal for you: Why don't you find me a historian--just one--whose methodology is to harmonize all his sources. Then give me one reason why we should presuppose the bible is inerrant, we'll evaluate its merits, and then we can see who's 'naive'. (honestly, I don't have much hope that you'll succeed when you cite the likes of Norman Geisler and find such arguments reasonable or convincing)
Good luck.
Finis,
Eric
Physicist
Member
Arbitrary assumptions
Virtually any textual discrepancy can be reconciled if the reconciler is allowed to use additional arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that have no external justification and are only made for the purpose of patching the conflict. For example, suppose there is a hit and run accident and one witness describes the car as red. Another witness describes the car as green. The logical conclusion is that at least one of the witnesses is wrong (They could both be wrong as the car may have been blue). However, if we add the additional arbitrary assumption that the car was red on one side seen by the first observer and green on the other side, then you can accept both testimonies as correct. But would you normally make such an assumption? It is obviously quite artificial and would be rejected in any fair trial.
Now consider the conflicting genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke. If we had only one of either of the gospels would anyone claim that it actually belonged to Mary? However, Apologists routinely, and arbitrarily, assign one or the other to Mary, in spite of the fact that Joseph is explicitly mentioned in both and Mary is not mentioned in either. This is logically equivalent to assuming the half-green and half-red car.
However, this does not end the problem because the names come together at Zerubabbel, son of Salatheil and founder of the second temple. Zerubabbal was a highly unusual name for a Hebrew (there is none mentioned elsewhere in the Bible) reflecting his Babylonian birthplace. Nor is Saletheil a common name, as say Joseph was. However, to reconcile the conflict, Apologists have to arbitrarily assume that there were two Zerubabbel's who happened to have the same father's name. About as likely event as the two-color hit and run car.
epistemaniac said:
Virtually any textual discrepancy can be reconciled if the reconciler is allowed to use additional arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that have no external justification and are only made for the purpose of patching the conflict. For example, suppose there is a hit and run accident and one witness describes the car as red. Another witness describes the car as green. The logical conclusion is that at least one of the witnesses is wrong (They could both be wrong as the car may have been blue). However, if we add the additional arbitrary assumption that the car was red on one side seen by the first observer and green on the other side, then you can accept both testimonies as correct. But would you normally make such an assumption? It is obviously quite artificial and would be rejected in any fair trial.
Now consider the conflicting genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke. If we had only one of either of the gospels would anyone claim that it actually belonged to Mary? However, Apologists routinely, and arbitrarily, assign one or the other to Mary, in spite of the fact that Joseph is explicitly mentioned in both and Mary is not mentioned in either. This is logically equivalent to assuming the half-green and half-red car.
However, this does not end the problem because the names come together at Zerubabbel, son of Salatheil and founder of the second temple. Zerubabbal was a highly unusual name for a Hebrew (there is none mentioned elsewhere in the Bible) reflecting his Babylonian birthplace. Nor is Saletheil a common name, as say Joseph was. However, to reconcile the conflict, Apologists have to arbitrarily assume that there were two Zerubabbel's who happened to have the same father's name. About as likely event as the two-color hit and run car.
Biblereader
Member
AMEN to that, brother!
Tell the truth! Never back down, either. Number one should be the FIRST thing anyone trying to understand the bible, questions.
Tell the truth! Never back down, either. Number one should be the FIRST thing anyone trying to understand the bible, questions.
veteran said:
Biblereader
Member
Re: A fair challenge
Except I don't presuppose this a priori.
Good thing, since a priori can't be supported by fact....
I'm decently sure inerrantists can (and do) offer reasons for thinking the bible is inerrant. Obviously I meant there are no good or valid reasons to think so.
Eric[/quote]
Let me ask you something, Eric. Do you believe God is all powerful, and able to do anything and everything?
Do you believe God is who He says He is?
Something for you to think about:
You believe God is all powerful, right? Well, you also know that, in the bible, He has promised many
times about keeping His words pure, and true. And, remember, God never lies. His promises are true.
I have often told those who believe there is no perfect Bible that you can hold in your hand, in existence today,
that I don't agree with them, because I don't subscribe to the "dumb God" theory.
You see, they believe that God is so powerful that He could overcome man's sinful nature and inspire a Book with no errors.
But, then He was so dumb that He lost it!
We bible-believers simply believe that the God who was so powerful that He could inspire a book, with no errors in it also has the
power to preserve it. He simply is not so "dumb" that He lost it.
So where is that perfect Book? Where is that written Word that we can be confident is "more sure" than God's speaking from
heaven? A Word which the Bible claims God has exalted above all of His name(Psalms 138:2)? In the KJV Bible.
Stop and think. Are we to believe that Satan, a sworn enemy of Truth, is not going to attempt to disrupt the travel of God's words through history?
Would he dare let the only tangible item which God has left us, remain free of his Satanic attacks? No! Satan cannot afford to allow the Holy Scriptures to pass through
history unmolested. He will obviously be heard to be its loudest textual critic and will attempt to eliminate God's true Word, while replacing it with his own
Satanic counterfeit.
(and, he has done it, and is doing it, at lightning speed)
*excerpt from Understandable History of the Bible, by Samuel Gipp.
Except I don't presuppose this a priori.
Good thing, since a priori can't be supported by fact....
I'm decently sure inerrantists can (and do) offer reasons for thinking the bible is inerrant. Obviously I meant there are no good or valid reasons to think so.
Eric[/quote]
Let me ask you something, Eric. Do you believe God is all powerful, and able to do anything and everything?
Do you believe God is who He says He is?
Something for you to think about:
You believe God is all powerful, right? Well, you also know that, in the bible, He has promised many
times about keeping His words pure, and true. And, remember, God never lies. His promises are true.
I have often told those who believe there is no perfect Bible that you can hold in your hand, in existence today,
that I don't agree with them, because I don't subscribe to the "dumb God" theory.
You see, they believe that God is so powerful that He could overcome man's sinful nature and inspire a Book with no errors.
But, then He was so dumb that He lost it!
We bible-believers simply believe that the God who was so powerful that He could inspire a book, with no errors in it also has the
power to preserve it. He simply is not so "dumb" that He lost it.
So where is that perfect Book? Where is that written Word that we can be confident is "more sure" than God's speaking from
heaven? A Word which the Bible claims God has exalted above all of His name(Psalms 138:2)? In the KJV Bible.
Stop and think. Are we to believe that Satan, a sworn enemy of Truth, is not going to attempt to disrupt the travel of God's words through history?
Would he dare let the only tangible item which God has left us, remain free of his Satanic attacks? No! Satan cannot afford to allow the Holy Scriptures to pass through
history unmolested. He will obviously be heard to be its loudest textual critic and will attempt to eliminate God's true Word, while replacing it with his own
Satanic counterfeit.
(and, he has done it, and is doing it, at lightning speed)
*excerpt from Understandable History of the Bible, by Samuel Gipp.
Re: A fair challenge
In this thread I have shown, in part, the mathmatical scientific method for proving innerencey and maintaining inerrency. It appears you have ignored that.
Here are a few of the other sciences that harmonize with the bible other than mathmatics -
Biologoly, astronomony, anthroplogy, archeaology, Physics, Chemistry, microbiology, and on and on it goes.
Do you not find it odd that the "theory" of evilution is taught in the education systems and the media as fact, when there has never been anything to prove it's innerency, and yet there is untold proof of the innerencey of scripture and it is still presumed as only just a religion. Well, Evilution is a religion that takes more faith than it does to believe (and know) that the bible is inspired by God. There is overwhelming proof the bible is the innerrent word of God so that blind faith is no longer required.
The so called contradictions that the heathen (and some so called christians) roll out ad nasueum do not exist. But any good criminal trying to save his own hide prior to execution, would do the same thing, so it's to be expected.
I wish you well in your search for an excuse to continue in your sins.
wavy said:epistemaniac said:
Except I don't presuppose this a priori. This can be known from actually studying the text. Which is why the following rambling block of text:
...is filled with straw men and can't be taken seriously. I'm decently sure inerrantists can (and do) offer reasons for thinking the bible is inerrant. Obviously I meant there are no good or valid reasons to think so. But your post is also flat out wrong and confused. Historians don't try to make all their sources say the same thing. You're confusing integrating all the evidence from the sources with harmonizing what all the sources say. The latter is not what historians do. Historians take the evidence and attempt a coherent portraiture in the process of reconstruction.
And no, I am not a historian. But I can cite multiple sources on the philosophy of history and historiography from those who are professional historians; I certainly don't know of any historian in the history of thought (saving, incidentally, religious apologists when dealing with their own religious texts!) whose methodology constitutes finding ingenious ways to force his sources to say the same thing, as you apparently do.
I have a proposal for you: Why don't you find me a historian--just one--whose methodology is to harmonize all his sources. Then give me one reason why we should presuppose the bible is inerrant, we'll evaluate its merits, and then we can see who's 'naive'. (honestly, I don't have much hope that you'll succeed when you cite the likes of Norman Geisler and find such arguments reasonable or convincing)
Good luck.
Finis,
Eric
In this thread I have shown, in part, the mathmatical scientific method for proving innerencey and maintaining inerrency. It appears you have ignored that.
Here are a few of the other sciences that harmonize with the bible other than mathmatics -
Biologoly, astronomony, anthroplogy, archeaology, Physics, Chemistry, microbiology, and on and on it goes.
Do you not find it odd that the "theory" of evilution is taught in the education systems and the media as fact, when there has never been anything to prove it's innerency, and yet there is untold proof of the innerencey of scripture and it is still presumed as only just a religion. Well, Evilution is a religion that takes more faith than it does to believe (and know) that the bible is inspired by God. There is overwhelming proof the bible is the innerrent word of God so that blind faith is no longer required.
The so called contradictions that the heathen (and some so called christians) roll out ad nasueum do not exist. But any good criminal trying to save his own hide prior to execution, would do the same thing, so it's to be expected.
I wish you well in your search for an excuse to continue in your sins.
I'm going to address this rather easily refuted list of 'mistakes' skeptics supposedly make point by point.
This is just maniac's rehash of the first item on the list, so we'll start with that:
This first item only begs the question of inerrancy. This will become evident in what follows. When a critic alleges an error in the bible, that is itself an explanation of an apparent discrepancy. Saying the discrepancy remains 'unexplained' presupposes that there is a priori reason to believe that there are no actual errors in the bible, and that all interpretations of the text should be a means to that end; in other words, that a resolution should be offered because it's impossible or extremely unlikely that there is an error in the biblical text. But no arguments have been offered favoring why we should assume this in the first place.
Let me give an illustration which, ironically, militates in favor of supernaturalism. Take one of the classic arguments for theism: the cosmological argument. There are many variations of this argument, but in general it deduces from some causal principle of the universe that a First Cause, God, necessarily exists. A non-theist might demur that all such arguments assume that scientists will not one day find a perfectly good naturalistic explanation of the existence of the universe. But this objection doesn't obtain by default. The theist can counter that there is no reason why we should assume that there is a naturalistic explanation out there waiting for discovery if what is currently known about the universe seems to be really the case. In other words, does what we currently observe about the nature of the universe seem to be really the case such as that the premises of any cosmological argument aren't suppressing the probability of further evidence, or, on the other hand, is the evidence ambiguous enough for it be an open question?
Now as a naturalist myself I would argue on strong inductive grounds that all natural phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, since as scientific knowledge excels we continue to find natural, not supernatural, explanations for things. The probability that as our knowledge increases (I think it is presumptuous to claim we know enough about this vast and mysterious universe to deduce God from what we know now) a naturalistic explanation will be found for the origin of the universe is very high. But the principle stands. I can't just claim because scientists haven't found an explanation yet that you can't make a deductive argument for God on the basis of cosmology. I have to have a valid reason for thinking that things are not as they seem in our present state of knowledge.
The same principle applies to the question of biblical inerrancy. When a contradiction is raised, many times it can be explained with good plausibility as a genuine discrepancy. If the best, most parsimonious explanation for an apparent discrepancy is that there is a mistake, there is no need to invoke the inexplicable. I am well within epistemic justification for assuming an error where normal standards of literary analysis and historical criticism are applied. That goes for the Bible as well as the Koran, the Avesta, the Diamond Sutra, the Mishna, the Vedas, or any other collection of sacred literature.
Since this is a baseless generalization it needs no refutation. This seems to me to be just paranoia; there's no way you can prove biblical critics assume the bible is guilty until proven innocent.
Of course, this is another example of question-begging: the reason why skeptics are wrong about the bible's errors is that the bible has no errors and therefore skeptics are wrong!
These can be taken together, and unfortunately in some cases both turn out to be so by all indications. This has to be decided on a case by case basis. Maniac has provided us with four good respective examples...two where I would agree with him, the other two not so much:
Here we have to be charitable. Granting for argument's sake that the gospels are examples of ancient historiography, we have to acknowledge the likelihood that they're reproducing any spoken dialogue verbatim is very low. Rather, they're trying to best represent the tenor of what was said. This is a case in point. To argue for any meaningful discrepancy here is unwarranted. I don't know any competent biblical critic who would.
Granting for the sake of argument that Exodus xx and Deut v have common authorship, the same standard above would apply. There's no reason to suggest any meaningful discrepancy between these two chapters. (However, it should be noted that the contents of both do contradict a third, often ignored version in Exo xxxiv, where the substantial content of the ten commandments is entirely different.)
This is absolutely an appalling rationalization that never works because it isolates propositions in the text and evaluates them philosophically (or in this case, mathematically!) in a vacuum without factoring the probable intentions of the author in and without looking at the context as a whole.
Of course there is always necessarily at least 1 of something if there are 2 of that same thing. But why, in this case, would one author report one angel and another author report two? There are no apparent contextual or thematic reasons for this divergence. In fact, taking the narratives as they read prima facie, it is clear that each author reported either number because he believed that's how many angels were there. Each author's account is probably based on an alternative reckoning of events. Matthew indicates only one because he meant one and knew of no others, not because he's playing mathematical or philosophical games. No reader would understand the indication of one angel to mean any more. The same applies to John's report of two for the same reasons.
When the Jewish historian Josephus speaks of an Egyptian magician in the first century who had 30,000 followers, and Luke, referring to the same Egyptian, reports that he only had 4,000 in Ac xxi.38 (historians accept Luke's reckoning as more likely), does Luke's smaller number only indicate that there are 4,000 in 30,000? Afterall, 'tis true, is it not? Or more sensibly when he says 4,000 does he mean just that? Should we 'harmonize' the two accounts so that Luke means what Josephus means?
There an endless number of examples, both real and hypothetical, that one could draw up to make the point. No one would find these examples convincing, and there's no reason to assume that this case is any different.
This is as silly as arguing that an account of John F. Kennedy's death would mention that he fell over in his limousine without mentioning that he got shot in the head! Luke says nothing about any hanging, and when giving an account of his death only mentions that somehow (by natural or supernatural means) he was eviscerated. Why Luke doesn't mention the hanging in his account of Judas's death is best explained by the fact that both he and Matthew knew conflicting versions of the manner of Judas's death, not by some ridiculous ad hoc conflation of both texts where Judas hangs himself, falls off a cliff and then lands on some 'sharp rocks' hence losing his guts. That even sounds silly and is convincing to no one with a head on their shoulders.
Finis,
Eric
This is just maniac's rehash of the first item on the list, so we'll start with that:
This first item only begs the question of inerrancy. This will become evident in what follows. When a critic alleges an error in the bible, that is itself an explanation of an apparent discrepancy. Saying the discrepancy remains 'unexplained' presupposes that there is a priori reason to believe that there are no actual errors in the bible, and that all interpretations of the text should be a means to that end; in other words, that a resolution should be offered because it's impossible or extremely unlikely that there is an error in the biblical text. But no arguments have been offered favoring why we should assume this in the first place.
Let me give an illustration which, ironically, militates in favor of supernaturalism. Take one of the classic arguments for theism: the cosmological argument. There are many variations of this argument, but in general it deduces from some causal principle of the universe that a First Cause, God, necessarily exists. A non-theist might demur that all such arguments assume that scientists will not one day find a perfectly good naturalistic explanation of the existence of the universe. But this objection doesn't obtain by default. The theist can counter that there is no reason why we should assume that there is a naturalistic explanation out there waiting for discovery if what is currently known about the universe seems to be really the case. In other words, does what we currently observe about the nature of the universe seem to be really the case such as that the premises of any cosmological argument aren't suppressing the probability of further evidence, or, on the other hand, is the evidence ambiguous enough for it be an open question?
Now as a naturalist myself I would argue on strong inductive grounds that all natural phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, since as scientific knowledge excels we continue to find natural, not supernatural, explanations for things. The probability that as our knowledge increases (I think it is presumptuous to claim we know enough about this vast and mysterious universe to deduce God from what we know now) a naturalistic explanation will be found for the origin of the universe is very high. But the principle stands. I can't just claim because scientists haven't found an explanation yet that you can't make a deductive argument for God on the basis of cosmology. I have to have a valid reason for thinking that things are not as they seem in our present state of knowledge.
The same principle applies to the question of biblical inerrancy. When a contradiction is raised, many times it can be explained with good plausibility as a genuine discrepancy. If the best, most parsimonious explanation for an apparent discrepancy is that there is a mistake, there is no need to invoke the inexplicable. I am well within epistemic justification for assuming an error where normal standards of literary analysis and historical criticism are applied. That goes for the Bible as well as the Koran, the Avesta, the Diamond Sutra, the Mishna, the Vedas, or any other collection of sacred literature.
Since this is a baseless generalization it needs no refutation. This seems to me to be just paranoia; there's no way you can prove biblical critics assume the bible is guilty until proven innocent.
Of course, this is another example of question-begging: the reason why skeptics are wrong about the bible's errors is that the bible has no errors and therefore skeptics are wrong!
These can be taken together, and unfortunately in some cases both turn out to be so by all indications. This has to be decided on a case by case basis. Maniac has provided us with four good respective examples...two where I would agree with him, the other two not so much:
Here we have to be charitable. Granting for argument's sake that the gospels are examples of ancient historiography, we have to acknowledge the likelihood that they're reproducing any spoken dialogue verbatim is very low. Rather, they're trying to best represent the tenor of what was said. This is a case in point. To argue for any meaningful discrepancy here is unwarranted. I don't know any competent biblical critic who would.
Granting for the sake of argument that Exodus xx and Deut v have common authorship, the same standard above would apply. There's no reason to suggest any meaningful discrepancy between these two chapters. (However, it should be noted that the contents of both do contradict a third, often ignored version in Exo xxxiv, where the substantial content of the ten commandments is entirely different.)
This is absolutely an appalling rationalization that never works because it isolates propositions in the text and evaluates them philosophically (or in this case, mathematically!) in a vacuum without factoring the probable intentions of the author in and without looking at the context as a whole.
Of course there is always necessarily at least 1 of something if there are 2 of that same thing. But why, in this case, would one author report one angel and another author report two? There are no apparent contextual or thematic reasons for this divergence. In fact, taking the narratives as they read prima facie, it is clear that each author reported either number because he believed that's how many angels were there. Each author's account is probably based on an alternative reckoning of events. Matthew indicates only one because he meant one and knew of no others, not because he's playing mathematical or philosophical games. No reader would understand the indication of one angel to mean any more. The same applies to John's report of two for the same reasons.
When the Jewish historian Josephus speaks of an Egyptian magician in the first century who had 30,000 followers, and Luke, referring to the same Egyptian, reports that he only had 4,000 in Ac xxi.38 (historians accept Luke's reckoning as more likely), does Luke's smaller number only indicate that there are 4,000 in 30,000? Afterall, 'tis true, is it not? Or more sensibly when he says 4,000 does he mean just that? Should we 'harmonize' the two accounts so that Luke means what Josephus means?
There an endless number of examples, both real and hypothetical, that one could draw up to make the point. No one would find these examples convincing, and there's no reason to assume that this case is any different.
This is as silly as arguing that an account of John F. Kennedy's death would mention that he fell over in his limousine without mentioning that he got shot in the head! Luke says nothing about any hanging, and when giving an account of his death only mentions that somehow (by natural or supernatural means) he was eviscerated. Why Luke doesn't mention the hanging in his account of Judas's death is best explained by the fact that both he and Matthew knew conflicting versions of the manner of Judas's death, not by some ridiculous ad hoc conflation of both texts where Judas hangs himself, falls off a cliff and then lands on some 'sharp rocks' hence losing his guts. That even sounds silly and is convincing to no one with a head on their shoulders.
Finis,
Eric
Re: A fair challenge
Most christians ignore it because they think blind faith is all that is required, but the time has come, because of silly arguements, and satanic attacks on the inerrency of the word of God, to provide irrefutable proof, this was settled over 100 years ago and greater minds than ours have been unable to refute it to this day. Ignoring it and stating it is crap tells me a lot.
People don't seem to care about irrefutable proof or irrefutable and absolute truth. The light shone into a dark world but the world perferred the darkness. This is where you are right now, in the world and in the dark.
Im not saying a Christian needs mathmatical proof to be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, only a fool can say in his heart their is no creator. But the fact remains, the mathematical design in scripture is a reality for the simple reason alone that everything God does is a mathematical certainty. Does it come as a surprsie that there is a mathematical patern running throughout the whole bible, of course not.
The things of God are spirtually descerned, a natural man will never understand them, so in essence even with mathematical evidence, it will not be enough to convert, but it is the death warrant, to all attacks on the inerrency of scripture. A christian ought to be able to feel secure in this, or at least have thier faith bolstered, why they dont is beyond me. Why you dont is explained in the word of God.
Your arguement is like the final plea for clemency by a man on death row. It aint gonna wash.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Scientific mathematical fact, by your estimation, may be crap but it is not a priory. You can't argue with mathematics, and there are 50 separate (at least) mathematical pattens in the first seven hebrew words of the bible alone.
I have an example in this forum, before you say it is crap, show me mathematically wher it is wrong.
You wont be able too, so you have to shift your ground to adhominum attack. It' just dosen't harmonize with me.
I have come to the conclusion that forums, including this one are for people who like to argue.
I dont, so I will leave you too it.
I had hoped to share some awesome news, it has been rejected by both christian and heathen alike. What a shame.
wavy said:
Most christians ignore it because they think blind faith is all that is required, but the time has come, because of silly arguements, and satanic attacks on the inerrency of the word of God, to provide irrefutable proof, this was settled over 100 years ago and greater minds than ours have been unable to refute it to this day. Ignoring it and stating it is crap tells me a lot.
People don't seem to care about irrefutable proof or irrefutable and absolute truth. The light shone into a dark world but the world perferred the darkness. This is where you are right now, in the world and in the dark.
Im not saying a Christian needs mathmatical proof to be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, only a fool can say in his heart their is no creator. But the fact remains, the mathematical design in scripture is a reality for the simple reason alone that everything God does is a mathematical certainty. Does it come as a surprsie that there is a mathematical patern running throughout the whole bible, of course not.
The things of God are spirtually descerned, a natural man will never understand them, so in essence even with mathematical evidence, it will not be enough to convert, but it is the death warrant, to all attacks on the inerrency of scripture. A christian ought to be able to feel secure in this, or at least have thier faith bolstered, why they dont is beyond me. Why you dont is explained in the word of God.
Your arguement is like the final plea for clemency by a man on death row. It aint gonna wash.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Scientific mathematical fact, by your estimation, may be crap but it is not a priory. You can't argue with mathematics, and there are 50 separate (at least) mathematical pattens in the first seven hebrew words of the bible alone.
I have an example in this forum, before you say it is crap, show me mathematically wher it is wrong.
You wont be able too, so you have to shift your ground to adhominum attack. It' just dosen't harmonize with me.
I have come to the conclusion that forums, including this one are for people who like to argue.
I dont, so I will leave you too it.
I had hoped to share some awesome news, it has been rejected by both christian and heathen alike. What a shame.
Physicist
Member
Re: A fair challenge
Dear Panin,
I assume that you are aware that Mathematician Brenden Mckay showed that amazing numerical patterns can be found in the book" Moby Dick" or any other long text. The mathematics behind this is complicated to explain, but, rest assured, that there is nothing special in the patterns you have found. This is fortunate because the copies of the canonical gospels we have are certainly not the exact words of the original texts now lost to us. I recommend reading Ehrman's book , " Misquoting Jesus", that discusses this topic.
Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Physicist
Panin said:
Dear Panin,
I assume that you are aware that Mathematician Brenden Mckay showed that amazing numerical patterns can be found in the book" Moby Dick" or any other long text. The mathematics behind this is complicated to explain, but, rest assured, that there is nothing special in the patterns you have found. This is fortunate because the copies of the canonical gospels we have are certainly not the exact words of the original texts now lost to us. I recommend reading Ehrman's book , " Misquoting Jesus", that discusses this topic.
Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Physicist