Damian King said
Yes. I said so already. Infallibility for me is about the Bible’s over-arching message in its orthodox interpretation. I do not believe that the Bible is a science textbook or history textbook
It is clear. The confusion came, I believe, when you used the term inerracy instead of infallibility.
For you to see the difference:
Inerrancy The last “in,” inerrancy, simply means that the Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).
————————————————-
The commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible leads evangelical apologists who defend it at all costs to surreal situations, ridiculous and even comic.
Just an example, but very significant and shocking:
** you do not have permission to see this link **—How could there be light before the sun was made?
Problem: The sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there was light on the first day (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Solution: The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Further, the sun may have existed from the first day, but only appeared or became visible (as the mist cleared) on the fourth day. We see light on a cloudy day, even when we can’t see the sun.
(When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.)
Comment by F.P.:
1º Of course there are other sources of light in the universe … today: candles, incandescent bulbs, voltaic arcs, LEDs, Laser … But natural sources are only the stars. Perhaps God used some of these artificial sources before creating the sun and the other stars as a soft backlight, the kind of ones in cocktail bars and discos for quiet people who want discretion and intimate atmosphere.
2º To say that the sun may have existed from the first day is anti-biblical, anathema and even heresy. Vade retro, satanas!
3º The example that sunlight can be seen when it is daytime and cloudy, even if the sun is not directly visible, is one of the biggest nonsense and childishness that I have read in apologetic books. And look that I have read hundreds and thousands of them!
Regards, friend Damian!
Backatcha. And sorry for confusing you with whoever it was said he was leaving. Busy day yesterday.
Nothing is ever going to change the fact that you know more about ancient languages than me (who doesn’t?) and have read more scholarship in this specfic area.
And nothing is going to change the fact that I know more about the overall study of history, and am a better writer.
And that’s the source of our friction. Competition. (I know you’ll deny this, and I will smile when you do.)
I will accept my share of the blame for any unpleasantness, but not yours. You won’t admit blame at any time. Even though we both know I’m not the only one here you’ve had problems with, or who has had problems with you.
Fair enough. We’ll agree to disagree. Your contribution here is important, and I’m glad you’re not leaving.
Damian King said
Biblical inerrancy is a doctrine in Christianity […] Whatever the case may be, it is undeniably a theological doctrine. Now, opponents of Christianity may challenge this theological doctrine.[…]
So my question is, how would a secular historian, who is trying to be neutral, approach a theological doctrine like the inerrancy of the Bible? How can someone neutral take sides on this issue?
I hope that makes sense
In the first place, it is not a doctrine of Christianity. As biblical inerrancy on the part of evangelical fundamentalists is understood, we have seen that it does not correspond, for example, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Holy Scriptures. Nor do they share that belief – that, I repeat, not doctrine – many Protestant “denominations”.
It is, more than a doctrine, an issue, a belief that is studied in some schools of theology, not in all. But it is also an empirical hypothesis that can be analyzed and, where appropriate, refuted as false. The belief of the innerrancy of the Bible can and should be analyzed and studied by historians, by scientists, by literary critics, by diachronic linguistics (or evolutionary linguistics) …
Historians, scientists, linguists and literary critics are competent or incompetent, experts or mere amateurs, honest or dishonest; but it is irrelevant — or so it should be — that they are religious (of any religion) or secular.
Expert believers of biblical questions are much more likely to be apologists, and therefore not neutral, than secular scholars who apply the methods of scientific epistemology with neutrality and objectivity as much as possible.
What you are completely right about is that, in general, theology is by its esoteric and supernatural nature, impossible to falsify (Popper, ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Because you’re human?
And I know people like you know Greek–not perfectly, but well enough to pass.
It comes back to me now that I asked you a question a while back, and you refused to answer.
Tit for tat.
What are your reiigious beliefs at this moment in time? Who is Jesus of Nazareth to you, and where do you stand on the validity of Christian faith?
godspell said
This is pretty much what I believe.So what are we arguing about?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And this just about sums it up with you.
You are such a poison and a mood killer to every thread I have started. Maybe leave my threads alone
Hey, I think I’m the only one who even posted to your most recent thread.
Maybe a thank you? At least a good morning. Such a Debbie Downer you are. I bet when you show up for confession, the priest rolls his eyes a bit. Because it’s just a litany of all the sins others have committed against you.
😀
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert