Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
| Quote | | You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug. I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions. |
I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
| Quote | | Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation? Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth? There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy." |
Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.
(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)
So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
| Quote | | Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better. Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant. Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis. |
Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation? I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered. .jpg)