Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Basically, your argument is founded on an assumption that there are no contradictions in scripture, and that is divinely inspired and inerrant. That's hardly solid logical ground upon which to stand while making one's claims.

Setanta wrote:

Basically, your argument is founded on an assumption that there are no contradictions in scripture, and that is divinely inspired and inerrant. That's hardly solid logical ground upon which to stand while making one's claims.

When even the ones that "get it", get entirely different interpretations of major issues such as trinity and the existence of hell, then that alone should be enough to dispel any notions of inerrancy.

neologist said quote..
Hmm

I'm stunned by your intellectual prowess. unquote.

Glad you have acknowledge my superior intellect neo
... real Christian ethics there.

mesquite wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Basically, your argument is founded on an assumption that there are no contradictions in scripture, and that is divinely inspired and inerrant. That's hardly solid logical ground upon which to stand while making one's claims.

When even the ones that "get it", get entirely different interpretations of major issues such as trinity and the existence of hell, then that alone should be enough to dispel any notions of inerrancy.

Disagreement over the meaning of scripture is not, in and of itself, proof of error.

The priests disagreed with Jesus.

Baddog1, the creation myths in Genesis got the order wrong as well as basic scientific principles. So how do you reconcile the mistakes with the belief that the Bible is inerrant?

And how about the points I raised earlier:

The Bible reflects basic misunderstandings of science, such as Jacob's erroneous notions of heredity, the order of creation in Genesis, the origin of rainbows, storehouses for snow and hail, abodes for darkness and light, stars falling out of the heavens, sprinkling bird blood over people and things to cleanse them of leprosy, making women drink bitter water to determine whether they committed adultery, reviving dead bones, women being turned into pillars of salt, driving demons out of people and into pigs, the entire book of Revelation, and so on.

Like an idiot, I read the chapter BD highlighted in Brugmans "webook". Its just a pile of ipsidixitist crap. It uses quotes from the Bible to infer evidence for an issue about the inerrancy of the Bible. This is total horshit. Any high school debate team would have his lunch (The only thing that continues this belief in Biblica inerrancy is that the Acolytes fail to listen to anything else).

What is the reason that nominally intelligent people unquestioningly accept such circular reasoning as valid when it comes to Biblical "evidence", when in things NOT relating to their religious beliefs they can be even rational.

Im not gonna worry too much about them.

I see where a scientist at Woods Hole (in the marine evolutionary biology research program) was dismissed because he was a Creationist. Hes since found a position at Liberty U (is their science dept even accredited?). However I understand that hes gonna sue Woods Hole for "viewpoint discrimination". Maybe , since this is a USGS funded program, well see a class action suit over this.

I dont predict hes gonna win any suit because hes -going in--guilty of fraud.

I couldnt not read it, after your ringing endorsement. Obviously theres a great gap in your education or reading comprehension skills. Anyway, if you bring it up, its open season, no?


What good are opinions if not personal?. My emotion is mostly born of frustration with your ilk.

Where is it written that people who rely upon the scientific method to learn about their world, and whose reliance has been wonderfully repaid in their experience, are not to have or express emotions?

Your questions require much more detail than could be described or even copy/pasted onto an internet forum. If you really desire to know & understand the answers to your questions [& more] - here is a good place to begin:

Thanks for the unwitting, emotion-based, personal opinions fm - duly noted.

BD-ever hear this quote.
"Art is a passion, pursued with discipline, Science is a discipline, pursued with passion"

My questions could easily be answered by someone who understood science and was honest enough to admit that the Bible was written by men ignorant of science with no input from an omniscient god.

Brugman got much of the science wrong (age of the universe, speed of expansion, source of the CMBR, etc) in his apologetic for the Jewish creation myth and he glossed over all of the errors in the order of creation given from Genesis. Neither the earth nor the "heavens" were made from waters. There were stars, sun and moon before there were plants. The moon is not a "light" but merely reflects light from the sun. Whales and birds did not appear before land animals.

Brugman's book does not even begin to address the other questions I asked you.

Here are some more questions for you: Do you believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib? When did God create viruses and other disease organisms? Do you believe that there was a world-wide flood and that all existing species descended from the specimens on Noah's ark? Is everyone (including Africans, Asians, Aborigines and Native Americans) descended from Noah? Did God cause the plagues in Egypt and murdered all of the first-born? Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walk around in a blazing furnace in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics? Did God confuse languages and scatter the people over the earth to keep them from achieving anything? How do you shut off the logical part of your brain in order to believe stuff that is obviously untrue?