The Bible is Infallible and inerrant? What do you mean?
Posted : 28 Jul, 2011 02:30 PM
Archimedes is right, so getting back on topic.....
One thing I would also add to this is just a person belief of mine.
I haven't read anyone else saying this, but I think the bible is not just True and trustworthy, but it is also full of understatements.
There are so many single sentences that if you read them, you would not stop reading, you would just keep on, and really miss the importance of them.
For instance in Genesis we get this one line: "Be fruitful and multiply"
Well, in modern times we have a whole science of demographics and they experts in this field tell us that 2.1 is the birth replacement rate.
If you have a nation of 100 million and you want to keep that number, then the average woman must have 2.1 children.
And they even have a number, and I think it is 1.1, that IF the birthrate falls below that number, and stays that way, that that entire nation will cease to exist!!
Right now we have several nations that have a birthrate of less than 1. So, just ignoring "be fruitful and mulitply" means that entire NATIONS will disappear!!
The Bible is Infallible and inerrant? What do you mean?
Posted : 28 Jul, 2011 02:38 PM
For Christians who debate skeptics this last paragraph is really important:
"we must not evaluate Scripture according
to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage, or
purpose. Such phenomena as a lack of modern technical precision,
perceived irregularities of grammar and spelling, observational
descriptions of nature, the use of hyperbole and round numbers. the
topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in
parallel accounts and the use of free citations should not be used as
arguments against the Scripture's inerrancy."
James replies:
I remember debating this skeptic whose entire proof the Bible was not true was a verse from the Old testament that spoke of
a "hare chewing its cud."
He said that there is no such thing as a rabbit that chews it cud, and therefore the Bible was not true.
I explained to him that the Bible records things from how it looks to man on Earth. That there ARE rabbits that store food in their cheeks and then chew it later.
He said that Chewing the cud, was according to science, when the animal swallows the food and regurgitates it in its mouth, and then RE chews the food.
So, he was ignoring how the Bible uses an observational
description of nature.
He would just laugh and say that his point proved that the Bible was untrue.
I mean if you are a man, and you see a rabbit chewing food when it has not eaten in a while, what is the difference if the animal stores the food in its cheeks or regurgitated it back up?
Skeptics will USE the Bible anyway they wish, and that is not what they would do with any other text, just the Bible, and we have to call them on it.
