AssemblyBoard

One of the people on another thread said, "Will, I like to think that life is a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."  I agree.  This life is a process and we never arrive fully at perfection or perfect knowledge.  We "peer through a glass darkly" at the moment as it says in 1 Corinthians.  Therefore, it can be dangerous for people who claim they have THE TRUTH because they could deny the truth by believing in a "truth" that is false.  How many times when we said we were right we were wrong and had to eat humble pie?  Many times I am sure.

"Faith" is a "firm persuasion," not a license to assert that you are right and you have the truth and everyone else is wrong simply because they do not agree with you.  We must take pains to be humble and admit that the light in us could be darkness; we should be constantly renewing our minds in light of Scripture AND scholarly findings.  Due to the fallibility of human nature, people can never claim that what they believe in is THE TRUTH, just what they believe is the truth for them at that moment.  The gospel is the truth.

Why do so many Christians have different ideas?  Everyone has a different notion of truth that is right for them or seems to fit in with their concept of theology based on their understanding of the Bible.  This fact that we all have different (though similar) ideas implies that we must decide or interpret truth for ourselves:  that was what Luther stood up to the Pope for—the right to interpret Scripture individually.  He believed that the Bible contained the Word of God, i.e., the gospel, the good news of salvation, BUT he (like many others until the Fundamentalist movement) did not believe that the Bible was inerrant and infallible and "is a completely reliable record of the history of the world" like many modern-day Christians were taught.  Luther (like Augustine and many others) studied the Bible and criticized parts of it and even pointed out discrepancies and stated that they did not believe that some of the stated authors were the real authors.  For example, many people like Luther have commented about the clear contradictions in the Resurrection Narratives if you attempt to compare the four gospels.  (Now, please, nobody tell me there is no contradictions until YOU have attempted to piece together a clear series of events from all four gospels yourself--I have painstakingly tried like Luther and so many others and it is simply not possible unless you omit contradictory passages.) How many women went to the tomb, where did they/she first see Jesus, and how many angels were in or out of the tomb and were the angels sitting, standing and what did they say exactly if you compare all gospel accounts?

If you accept the fact that the Bible contains the gospel, the good news and truth of God’s love for humankind, you have no problem because the Bible was written by men and inspired by God.  But if you assert the Bible is infallible and inerrant and a “completely reliable account” of history and science, nonbelievers can and have used these beliefs to discredit Christianity.  For example, the Fundamentalist notion of a perfect Bible and the Word of God was used against Christians in the famous court case over allowing evolution to be taught in American schools.  Genesis 1-3 was examined and was very easily proven to be contradictory because there are in fact two separate creation stories in Genesis (Gen. 1: 1-2:4 vs. Gen. 2: 4-24) as scholars have shown.  The first creation story was written in reaction to the Babylonian Creation story to show that only one God created the world rather than many.  If you don’t admit that there are two different creation stories in the Bible and the Bible was complied from various human writings, the Bible will have contradictions.  For example, were humans formed before or after the animals (Gen. 1:25-27 vs. Gen. 2:18f)? In Gen. 1:12 it stated the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man, but in Genesis 2:5 no vegetation had yet been grown!  If the Bible is innerrant in terms of Science and History, if God created light in Gen. 1:2f, why did He then create the sun, moon and stars on day four (Gen1: 14-19)?  The Creationists had argued in court that evolution/science was the work of humans and therefore flawed but the evolutionists argued the exact same thing and discredited the fact that the Bible is "a completely reliable record" of science and history!  

As the above example so clearly shows, you need to think twice before asserting the Bible as “a completely reliable record” of history and science.  To make the Bible out to be more than just a book written by men and inspired by God causes problems and discredits Christianity in the eyes of secular Biblical scholars and others who think they cannot believe in the truth of the gospel because most Christians hold to the inerrancy and infalibility of the Scriptures.  Such people who seriously study the Bible as literatures know that some “mistakes” in the Bible can be written off as copyist mistakes like 2 Sam. 21:19 vs.1 Chron. 20:5 or 2 Kings 8:25 vs. 2 Kings 9:29), and some can be explained away like who bought the Potters’ Field (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:6-7) or if the Lord or Satan tempted David to number the people of Israel (2 Sam. 24:1 vs. I Chron 21:1).  But were the disciples supposed to take or not take staffs and sandals (Mark 6:8-9 vs. Matt:10-9-10)? How many fighting men were there really (2 Sam. 24: 9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5)?  Despite its human foibles, however, it still contains the truth of the gospel for us today, but it is not a "perfectly reliable document" in terms of history and science.  I could give more examples but I will stop here.

THE POINT TO THIS POST IS:
We need to interpret the Bible ourselves for today and realize that humans wrote it at a particular place and time and within a culture that no longer exists.  In Genesis is says that the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would die.  We do not take that literally and INTERPRET that death as spiritual.  We no longer greet one another with a holy kiss even though Paul tells the saints to.  We no longer own slaves and the role of women has thankfully changed in society.  The Apostle Peter says we are to obey those in authority over us but in Acts he stood against the authorities.  The point to this paragraph is we must interpret the Bible ourselves and decide what God’s will is for us.  He has given us a brain and He wants us to use it so that life can be "a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."

Praise the Lord!

On another thread, I am having quite the discussion with others so I thought that another view point might be justified.  This essay summarizes many of the things I have come to see in my own personal studies over the years:

Literalism, Infallibility and Inerrancy

taken from http://www.geocities.com/christianbiblestudy/Exegesis/inerrancy.htm

Reformed Confessions

After the canon of the Bible was authorized in the fourth century under Emperor Constantine, the church began to resolve disputes about the meaning of its scriptures by issuing authoritative statements on doctrine.  These statements became the creeds and dogma of the Church, which were used to condemn heretical teaching as well as to encourage proper Christian living.

During the Reformation Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and other Protestant reformers rejected the authority of the Pope over the church and argued for the authority of scripture.  Beginning in the sixteenth century and continuing through the twentieth century Reformed confessions have affirmed the authority of scripture and established guidelines for interpreting the Bible.  These confessions all assert that the Bible is the word of God, but they differ in their understanding of that conviction....

Modern Arguments

Claims that the Bible is literally the infallible word of God were first voiced in the Reformation in response to the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation and the rise of textual criticism of manuscripts.  The seventeenth century Swiss theologian Francis Turretin argued that the first handwritten scriptures were entirely inspired by God, and he and British scholar John Owen asserted that even the vowel points of the Hebrew words of the Bible were of divine origin.  This had not been the teaching of the Catholic church. Moreover, later historical research revealed that vowel points were in early biblical manuscripts but were added by medieval scribes.

The word "inerrant" was first used in English to describe the fixed location of stars in the sky in contrast with the planets, which were seen as wandering (errant).  A century later British theologians, who saw the universe as rational and orderly, taught that the truth of the Bible was as self-evident as the truths of nature known through Newtonian science.  In the newly formed United States of America Charles Hodge, a theologian at Princeton, also taught that God's nature and laws could be known through the Bible without interpretation.  Hodge argued that Calvinist theology supported the inerrancy of Bible, which was taken to mean that the Bible is free from error of fact in every way including science and history as well as ethics and doctrine.

The Civil War in the United States in the 1860s and changes in science after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 led many to challenge the idea that the Bible was literally the word of God and factually true in every respect.  Arguments about evolution and biblical authority for slavery divided churches and led to a revised view of inerrancy among some factions that claimed only the original manuscripts of the Bible to be without error.  Until the late 1920s this position dominated teaching at Princeton Seminary and also the doctrine of the Presbyterian church.

World War I and the Great Depression, as well as advances in scientific research and understanding,  shattered the idea of an orderly world progressing toward the realization of our highest ideals.  Theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner understood the teachings of John Calvin to assert that the Bible is not inerrant, but rather is God's instrument of self-revelation in the world.  They taught that the Bible does not contain propositions about truth, but instead reveals God's saving grace in Jesus Christ and his continuing presence through the Holy Spirit in the life of the church.

In the 1960s and 1970s the civil rights struggle, the war in Vietnam, advocacy for women's rights, and conflict over homosexuality as well as growing support within American Protestant churches for the infallibility of the Bible led some theologians to assert that the Bible is a very human book with a divine message.  Dutch theologian G. C. Berkouwer argued that 2 Tim. 3:16-17, which states "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable . . . for training in righteousness," is about inspiring love and acts of justice rather than verifying the divine origin of the Bible.  

He and other theologians looked to John Calvin for teachings that emphasize the practical use of scripture to encourage reverence and right living.  They noted that the deviance between scientific understanding and scriptural descriptions of creation did not undermine the authority of the Bible for Calvin, who understood that scripture was shaped by its historical and cultural circumstances.  Calvin emphasized the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the divine will expressed in the limited form of human flesh.  For many Christians today this means reading scripture with awareness of its historical and literary composition even as we remain open to the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning of the Bible for our faithful and living witness to God's grace.

 

Conclusion

There is nothing in the Bible about scripture being literally true, or infallible or inerrant. These are ideas that have been imposed on the Bible by Christians in order to defend certain interpretations of it. To argue that the Bible is literally true, word for word, and not in some places figuratively true or allegorically true, is to interpret the Bible. To assert that the Bible is the infallible word of God, as though it is fixed in time and does not require any translation or interpretation, is to defend an interpretation of the Bible that flies in the face of church history.

Christians continue to defend the inerrancy and the infallibility of scripture, but this is an interpretation that has little evidence to sustain it and is by no means a plain reading of the text.  Any reader of the Bible can find factual inconsistencies.  For instance, the first three gospels report that Jesus was crucified the day after Passover, but the gospel of John has Jesus crucified on Passover.  Similarly, the first three gospels report that Jesus cleansed the temple of the money changers a few days before he was arrested and put on trial, whereas in the gospel of John this story is placed at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus.  

There are also many examples of teachings in the New Testament that are inconsistent.  In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus teaches that he has not come to abolish Jewish law, and in Romans 10:4 Paul teaches that Christ came to abolish Jewish law. Which of these contradictory teachings is inerrant? The church has come to agree with Paul and thus has chosen to ignore the literal meaning of the teaching about Jewish law in the gospel of Matthew. The church has long dealt with contradictions in the Bible by interpreting some passages literally and other passages as figurative or spiritual in meaning.  For instance, teachings in the gospel of Matthew and elsewhere in the New Testament about keeping Jewish law are interpreted to mean keeping the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.  This interpretation is based on a reading of the entire New Testament, which includes Paul's letters and other gospel texts that present Jesus violating the law for the sake of a greater good.

We cannot read and understand Christian scripture without interpreting it.  Therefore, it is misleading to claim that the Bible is the literal word of God, or the infallible word of God, or the inerrant word of God. God did not dictate the Bible. Human beings wrote the books of the Bible in their own languages, using words that had meanings in their own time and place. Centuries later, when the Bible was translated into English from manuscripts that were not original, scholars interpreted the meaning of its ancient languages so that you and I might understand passages written in Hebrew for Israelites and in Greek for Christians.

Christians trust in the Bible as the word of God, but the church throughout history has had the responsibility of discerning what that word is. The Scots Confession affirmed in 1560 that "we dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love." We should be guided by these words and by the history of biblical interpretation that is central to the Reformed tradition of Christian faith.

There are 39 books which comprise the "Old Testament" portion of the Bible. They can loosely be divided into a middle experiential five:
JOB, PSALMS, PROVERBS,SONGS OF SOLOMON,ECCLESIASTES.
These central ("heart") five are bracketed by two historical/prophetical groups of Seventeen books each.
The Seventeen are further sub-divided into two groups of Twelve and Five books respectively.
The Twelve books are divided into sub-groups of Nine and Three books respectively.

The first Seventeen are of course Genesis through Esther.
This group divides into Five : Genesis to Deuteronomy(Books of Moses or the Pentateuch)

And Twelve: Joshua to Esther (Historical)

The group of Twelve Joshua to Esther divides into:
Nine: Joshua to 2 Chronicles
Three: Ezra to Esther

The first Nine of this group of Twelve describes Israel's pre-exile history.
The last Three of this group of Twelve describe Israel's  post-exile history.

The second group of Seventeen are Isaiah through Malachi.
This group also divides into sub-groups of Five and Twelve.
Five : Isaiah through Daniel. The Major prophets
Twelve: Hosea through Malachi. The Minor prophets.

Note the strategic location of lamentations in dividing the four great pre-exile and post exile prophets.

The group of Twelve Hosea to Malachi divides into:
Nine: Hosea to Zepheniah
Three: Haggai to Malachi

Again of course the first Nine prophetical books speak of Isarael's pre-exile history and the last Three speak of Israel's post -exile history.

Interesting symmetry is it not? Man's ingenuity? or Divine superintendancy? You decide.  ;)

Honey Comb

The honey comb is a marvel of engineering. Though it looks like simple six sided tubes stacked together, the back is not a flat plate like one might expect. It is a most interesting shape. Each tube is actually a truncated regular rhombic dodecahedron, which being interpreted is a cut twelve sided thing where each side is roughly diamond shaped and all the sides are the same. Of all the known regular polyhedra (flat sided things) there is none that can enclose as much volume per surface area (hold as much with as little material). In other words, bees can store more honey with less wax this way that any other way. God is great!

Claude

The following numbers are the area cubed divided by the volume squared of some shapes:

374.123 --- tetrahedron
216.000 --- cube
187.061 --- octahedron
152.735 --- rhombic dodecahedron --- face-centered cubic lattice
150.123 --- truncated octahedron --- body-centered cubic lattice
149.858 --- dodecahedron
136.459 --- icosahedron
113.097 --- sphere

Of the two lattice polyhedra listed, the truncated octahedron seems to be a little better than the rhombic dodecahedron.  Also listed are the five regular polyhedra and the sphere.

The rhombic dodecahedron is semi-regular since the faces are all the same.  The truncated octahedron is uniform since the vertices are all the same.  If the faces are all the same and the vertices are all the same, then the polyhedron is regular.

Soap bubbles are much more strictly governed by the principle of minimizing surface area than the honeycomb.  A rule of differential geometry says that minimal surfaces must meet at 120 degree angles.  If you look carefully at soap bubbles you can see that their surfaces all meet at 120 degree angles.  The truncated octahedron must not be optimal since the angles between its faces are not 120 degrees.  The optimum is probably something irregular.  One way to find out would be to try to create a bunch of soap bubbles of exactly identical volume, and see how they arrange themselves.

Of course with the bees, as with most practical real world engineering problems, there are many other considerations besides just surface area versus volume.

> The following numbers are the area cubed divided by the volume
> square of some shapes:

Why do you cube the area and square the volume? Is it to have the same units?

> 374.123 --- tetrahedron
> 216.000 --- cube
> 187.061 --- octahedron
> 152.735 --- rhombic dodecahedron --- face-centered cubic lattice
> 150.123 --- truncated octahedron --- body-centered cubic lattice
> 149.858 --- dodecahedron
> 136.459 --- icosahedron
> 113.097 --- sphere

The sphere wins every time.

> The rhombic dodecahedron is semi-regular since the faces are all the
> same.  The truncated octahedron is uniform since the vertices are
> all the same.  If the faces are all the same and the vertices are
> all the same, then the polyhedron is regular.

I sit corrected: The Rhombic dodecahedron is semi-regular.

> Soap bubbles are much more strictly governed by the principle of
> minimizing surface area than the honeycomb.  A rule of differential
> geometry says that minimal surfaces must meet at 120 degree angles.
> If you look carefully at soap bubbles you can see that their
> surfaces all meet at 120 degree angles.  The truncated octahedron
> must not be optimal since the angles between its faces are not 120
> degrees.  The optimum is probably something irregular.  One way to
> find out would be to try to create a bunch of soap bubbles of
> exactly identical volume, and see how they arrange themselves.

Soap bubbles are amazing. The physical nature of the bubbles (surface
tensions, etc.) causes them to rearrange themselves into a minimal
arrangement.

> Of course with the bees, as with most practical real world
> engineering problems, there are many other considerations besides
> just surface area versus volume.

Yes, the most significant consideration is that they must stack (two
levels deep) without empty space. Square and hexagonal (flat ended)
tubes stack well but are inefficient.

On a related topic (God as engineer and mathematician), what do you
think of daisies, the two sets of spirals (clock-wise and counter
clock-wise), and the numbers we find? Specifically, when we count the
number of spirals in one direction and the number in the other
direction, we discover that they are one after the other in the
Fibonacci series. The numbers that Fibonacci discovered (God invented
them) lead us to architecture and beauty: as one goes up the series,
the ratio of consecutive numbers approach the golden ratio. This of
course leads us to consider the concept of beauty: our appreciation
of the beauty God created in the universe demonstrates that we are
indeed created in His image.

Claude Marinier

Soap bubbles...and planets.  I've heard some speculate that the holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem, will be spherical because that is the epitome of perfection.  (Ever seen the movie Sphere with Dustin Hoffman, Samuel Jackson and Sharon Stone?  -- If not, don't.  It's not very good).  But then again, I don't think the spiritual realm operates according to this one's physical laws.

One could make a fairly cogent argument that the workings of things physical, were intended to teach us something of the nature and reality of things spiritual...
 eg. Christ's comment "Look at the sparrows..."

For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
Romans 1:20

Through faith we understand that the worlds were famed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear
Hebrews 11:3

There was a time in which I would experience great puzzlement by the psuedo-intellectual dialectic of some claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, but also maintaining that it was unreliable, particularly in matters of history and science. This poses a most serious problem if you accept the a priori claims of the above verses.
I was profoundly at a loss to understand how anyone who claimed to have made a diligent study of the Holy Scriptures could come away from that endeavor with the conviction that God was either a liar or an ignoramus.
I am now more than ever convinced, that that which drives men to try and invalidate the teaching of the Word of God in one particular area, is opprobrium to its clear and unmistakable claims in another.
This, I fear, is the way of the depraved human heart...
Verne

For the Word of God is quick and powerful. and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and itents of the heart
Hebrews 4:12

If you double the size, the area is quadrupled and the volume is multiplied by eight, so the larger size is more efficient.  One way to compare the merits of different shapes is to specify that the volume of each is equal to one, and to compare their areas.  Raising the area to a positive power doesn't change the comparison of which is bigger.  By dividing the cube of the area by the square of the volume, the result is unaffected by the size.

The fact that bigger is more efficient would seem to be the opposite of what the bees actually do.  The cells of the honeycomb are no bigger than necessary for the bees to fit into them.
Oops, I goofed!  I left out the requirement that the above mentioned faces and/or vertices must be related to each other by symmetry.  (These definitions are by Coxeter (http://www.math.toronto.edu/coxeter/), who is famous for his books on polyhedra and geometry.  He died on March 31, 2003 at the age of 96.)
Your use of the expression "A minimal arrangement" is correct.  The soap bubbles may not find "the" minimal arrangement, but merely an arrangement that is "locally minimal", meaning that any change that is small enough will result in a greater total surface area.
The Fibonacci series and the golden ratio come out as a special case from the Euclidean algorithm and the continued fraction series, which are in turn related to a tiling of the hyperbolic plane with triangles in which all three angles are zero.  The symmetry of this tiling pattern is called the modular group.

The Euclidean algorithm produces the continued fraction series which provides an efficient way to find successive rational approximations of irrational numbers.  The golden ratio produces continued fraction terms which are all equal to one.  Any solution of an integer coefficient quadratic equation produces a periodic continued fraction series.

The mathematical constant e produces the terms: (2,1,2,1,1,4,1,1,6,1,1,8, ...)

The helical pattern of leaves around the stems of some kinds of plants follows the golden ratio in a manner similar to the spiral arrangement of sunflower seeds.  A rational twist rate would result in leaves shadowing each other.  The golden ratio is optimal in a sense by being as far away as possible from rational numbers.  As a ratio gets closer to a rational number, terms in the continued fraction series get bigger.

You guys amaze me.

All of this stuff is way beyond me, but I love reading about it.

Brent

More confirmation of God's genius. I do not quite get the sense of that last sentence.

Claude

Pi produces the terms: (3,7,15,1,292,1,1,1,2,1,3,1,14, ... )

This means that Pi = 3 + 1/( 7 + 1/( 15 + 1/( 1 + 1/( 292 + ... )))).

Since 292 is a rather large term in the series, that means that Pi is close to the rational number you get by replacing 292 with infinity, which is 355/113.  This fraction agrees with the first seven digits of Pi.

Replacing 15 with infinity gives 22/7 which is a common crude approximation of Pi.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction)

The calculation can be described using matrix multiplication:

(  0   1  )(  0   1  )(  0   01  )(  0   1  )   =   (  106   113  )
(  1   3  )(  1   7  )(  1   15  )(  1   1  )   =   (  333   355  )

where:

(  1   2  )(  5   6  )   =   (  1*5 + 2*7     1*6 + 2*8  )
(  3   4  )(  7   8  )   =   (  3*5 + 4*7     3*6 + 4*8  )

The answer of 355/113 appears upside down in the right column of the matrix.

---

Producing the terms of the series is not all that mysterious.  Taking away the integer part of Pi, which is 3, leaves the fractional part, which is 0.14159...  The reciprocal of the fractional part can then go through the same procedure.  Roundoff errors can be avoided by using a quotient to represent the number.  Thus the reciprocal is obtained by simply swapping the numerator and denominator.

314159/100000 = 3 + 14159/100000
100000/14159 = 7 + 887/14159
14159/887 = 15 + 854/887
887/854 = 1 + 33/854
854/33 = 25 + 29/33
33/29 = 1 + 4/29
29/4 = 7 + 1/4
4/1 = 4

This procedure is the Euclidean algorithm.  The last denominator in this example came out equal to one.  The last denominator is the greatest common divisor of the two numbers in the original fraction.

3.14159 = (3,7,15,1,25,1,7,4)

The first four terms are correct for Pi.  Usually about the first half of the terms produced are correct if the number you start with is rounded.

A quick thanks to all who post here.
I really enjoy reading this thread.  
"How marvelous are Thy works..."
I'm looking forward to that great Day when even I, too, will understand it. :)

Becky

I've got a question perhaps someone could answer for me since you are speaking of science and math:

At work, while operating our retrofit multiplexer, what would you consider optimal speed(non-sequential and ultra-gyroscopic of course), when coaxial fusion is thermo-pulsating near arculus(In a non-static, fero-dyanmic environment)? Retrograde may be analytical, so consider humidity when figuring logyrhymic flashpoint.

Please give the answer in a non-sequential series, as the photonic gradient is not mutually exclusive in neutrionic, non-combustive utilities.

Thanks.

I am shocked to find that the retrofit mutiplexer is still in operation. We only use the finest fero-magnetic paired electron p,s,f-orbital imagers with computer assited regression. However for those who use the fashionably obsolete last generation machines, the calculations are complicated. Take the atmospheric pressure in the vicinity of the arculus point and multiply it by the spherical volume occupied by the coaxial fusion distorsion. Be careful to compensate for the brownian motion of the deutrium isotopes and their cooresponding isomers by dividing the cooeficient of the ratio of d-heavy water vapour to t-heavy water vapour with the square thermo-pulse rate (in isoHertz of course). This will give you the P-gradient K which is then substituted into the following formula: K[(2.34Pi((23N/m)/(isometric fusion density*J m/s)+ Hydrigen-3 particle acceleration]
This is of course assuming that the device in question opperates using 2,3-dimethyl-6-propyleneglycohol as a coolant.
Just a note, the 92, 93 and 95 models have a glich in the isolation matrix for the cycloalkene conversion tower.

Philippe Marinier

Phillipe---

Thank you so much for your input. I am standing next to the
retrofit multiplexer at this moment and have turned it on and it is nearing arculus. Per your instructions I have multiplied by the spherical volume occupied by the coaxial fusion distortion. So far so good.  I am attempting to compensate for the brownian motion of the deutrium isotopes and their corresponding isomers. Wait a minute, by following your instructions I am beginning to see a fantastic overload in the isolation matrix. It's getting louder---I think it's the cycloalkene tower. I was told not to calculate d-heavy water vapor to t-heavy water vapor, but figured you might know what you were talking about. Man, it's really starting to get loud. The pressure gauges have reached nucleatic arculastis!!!  I'd better run or

It's obviously too late for poor ol' Joe.  But, for any others who are faced with this, might I recommend a plunger!

Kids don't try this at home. I warned you about the 92, 93 and 95 models. This is what you amateurs get for meddling in the affairs of science. "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup".

Philippe

The internet is a great resource for learning about the things that Joe asked about.  I searched for arculus and found that it is an arc shaped crossvein in dragonfly wings.  In the beautiful picture in the following website, the first three large longitudinal veins on the fromt edge of each wing are crossed by a number of short crossveins.  Between the third and fourth longitudinal veins, crossveins are absent near the body.  The crossvein nearest to the body is arc shaped (sort of) and is the origin of more longitudinal veins.

http://stephenville.tamu.edu/~fmitchel/dragonfly/Aeshnidae/am2ta.htm

Joe's equipment must contain something of a similar sort.  I haven't found a definition for "neutrionic", but I found the other terms after correcting some spelling errors.  (This stuff is way over my head.)

My! What erudition has erupted on this thread! I wonder if Will will come back and join the fun... ;)
But semi-seriously, the talk about Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio is mega cool. This is the kind of stuff people who are really interested in looking at cosmology with a view to Divine plan and purpose can really sink their teeth into.
For those a little dazed by some of the spectacular displays of technical erudition, a brief summary:

The golden ratio, often represented by the Greek letter phi, (the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet, not pi,  the sixteenth letter) is a number that is used many times over in nature and human construction during the creation of bodies, and is in very close relation to the sequence.(Fibonacci)

First discovered by Greek Mathematicians, it has been used many times over throughout history and has been a source of inspiration to mathematicians, considered to be the key to the construction of aesthetically pleasing creations, and thus is seen in nature, a true piece of art, often repeated.

Roughly, it is the ratio of "1.618034…" to "1" but finding a more exact answer can quite a challenge to the impatient!

The Fibonacci sequence consists of the numbers 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34... which are derived by adding together the last 2 numbers in sequence.

The relation of the Fibonacci sequence to the golden mean, is that if you take any 2 numbers in sequence and divide the greater by the less, you will get a number that is somewhat close to the golden mean. In fact, the larger the numbers used in the Fibonacci sequence, the closer you will get to a number that is equal to that of the golden mean.

For example:
2/1 = 2
3/2 = 1.5
5/3 = 1.6666...
8/5 = 1.6
13/8 = 1.625
21/13=1.615
34/21=1.619

Notice anything interesting about the the series' asymptotic approach to the golden ratio?
Although the numbers are not perfectly exact to the golden mean, they are very close, and the higher you go, the closer it seems to get...there is good reason to believe that the golden ratio, phi, is the true universal constant and not the Fibonacci series...
Verne
p.s.
Next thing you know we will all be waxing eloquent about Mandelbrot sets!
Philippe, stay out of you dad's work-shop! ;D
Verne

If one calculates phi using Fibonacci numbers, by the time you divide the 32nd by the 31st you get as many digits as you can get out of a PC (using double precision floating point arithmetic). Here is a table of successive Fibonacci numbers and the corresponding approximations to phi.

        Fibonacci    Approximation of
           Number    the Golden Ratio
    1           1
    2           1      1.000000000000
    3           2      2.000000000000
    4           3      1.500000000000
    5           5      1.666666666667
    6           8      1.600000000000
    7          13      1.625000000000
    8          21      1.615384615385
    9          34      1.619047619048
   10          55      1.617647058824
   11          89      1.618181818182
   12         144      1.617977528090
   13         233      1.618055555556
   14         377      1.618025751073
   15         610      1.618037135279
   16         987      1.618032786885
   17        1597      1.618034447822
   18        2584      1.618033813400
   19        4181      1.618034055728
   20        6765      1.618033963167
   21       10946      1.618033998522
   22       17711      1.618033985017
   23       28657      1.618033990176
   24       46368      1.618033988205
   25       75025      1.618033988958
   26      121393      1.618033988670
   27      196418      1.618033988780
   28      317811      1.618033988738
   29      514229      1.618033988754
   30      832040      1.618033988748
   31     1346269      1.618033988751
   32     2178309      1.618033988750
   33     3524578      1.618033988750

Another neat thing about phi is that

   phi = 1 / phi + 1

Using the MS Windows SuperCalculator2, I get

   1 / 1.618033988749895 = 0.618033988749895
Now you're talking. They are beautiful and incredibly complex. Enlarging sections produces more details. Some have speculated that God uses fractals (the Mandelbrot set is a fractal) to encode some of the patterns for living things like alveola in lungs.

Claude

Eeeee-gad!
Verne

The first few digits of the golden mean are:

1. 6180339887 4989484820 4586834365 6381177203 0917980576 2862135448 6227052604 6281890244 9707207204 1893911374 8475408807 5386891752 1266338622 2353693179 3180060766 7263544333 8908659593 9582905638 3226613199 2829026788 0675208766 8925017116 9620703222 1043216269 5486262963 1361443814 9758701220 3408058879 5445474924 6185695364 8644492410 4432077134 ...

It is more efficient to use Newtons approximation method to get more accuracy.  Then the number of digits accuracy doubles with each iteration.

to solve f(x)=0, start with an estimated solution and compute a more accurate estimate using the formula:

xnew = xold - f(x)/f'(x), where f'(x) is the slope of f(x).

For the golden ratio, f(x) = x^2 - x - 1, and f'(x) = 2*x - 1.

So, xnew = xold - (x^2 - x - 1) / (2*x - 1).

Here are successive estimates of the solution:
1
2
1.6666666666666666666666666666667
1.6190476190476190476190476190476
1.6180344478216818642350557244174
1.6180339887499890970472967792907
1.6180339887498948482045868383382
1.6180339887498948482045868343656

DOUBLE Eeee-GAD!!......first few indeed...!

You guys are just making it harder for me to understand how you ended up following GG! You probably each have about 40 IQ points on him!  And a good 75 over DG! ;D

Scott

Interesting Facts About The Bible
The Bible is the life and tree of knowledge which contains:
* 66 books
* 1,189 chapters
* 31,173 verses
* 810,697 words
* and 3,566,480 letters.
* The longest chapter is Psalm 119.
* The middle verse is Psalm 118.8.
* The longest name is in Isaiah 8.
* The word "and " occurs 46,627 times.
* The word "Lord" 1,855 times.
* 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are almost alike.
* The longest verse is Esther 8:9 with 90 words and 426 letters.
* The shortest verse is John 11:35; "Jesus wept".
* Ezra 7:21 contains all the letters of the alphabet except 2.
* Ezra the scribe was the first to preach from a pulpit.
* The words "boy" and "girl" "chapel" "coffin" "eternity" and "reverend" are only mentioned once - read on until you find them.
* The finest piece of reading is said to be in Acts 26.
* The name of God is not once mentioned in Esther, although it contains so much holiness, knowledge, love, and wisdom.

Read the Bible diligently in preference to the trash of the present day. All who may doubt these words and figures, count them for yourselves.

The above wonderful calculations occupied much time, devotion, study and perseverance to complete the work, and it is said to have originated from either an afflicted invalid lady or from a convict long confined in prison, thus enabling him to help pass away the solitary hours, and who must have been blessed with the patience of Job to complete the task.



The book of Isaiah is constructed much like the entire Bible.

**Bible: 66 books.
**Isaiah: 66 chapters.

**Bible: First 39 books mainly concern Isreal.
**Isaiah: First 39 chapters mainly concern Isreal.

**Bible: Last 27 books concern the life and coming of Jesus Christ.
**Isaiah: Last 27 chapters concern the life and coming of Jesus Christ.



Verne
 

In general, I find it easier to solve Math problems than to figure out whether someone is telling me the truth or not.  I like Math because it's honest and straightforward.  I have a hard time understanding people, but I have to try.

Verne---
Thanks for those statistics. But you know, the guy I have to say that I truly admire, having no computers to work with etc. was John Strong, author of "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance". That whole work was done literally by hand. He did not do it alone, doling out some of the work to others, but he did a large majority of it by himself. Can you imagine the labor involved in putting that massive work together? And if he could see what we are able to do now with computers he would probably fall down and cry thinking of all the hours he missed out on where he could have been fishing instead.(just kidding).

--joe

Hey Steve, have you ever heard of a program called FRACTINT?  Your mention of Newton's aproximation reminded me of it.  

Here's a pic from it:

(http://www.restfortheweary.us/images/FRACT001.GIF)

Fibonacci's sequence can be applied to numerous natural phenomena:

 
Medieval mathematician and businessman Fibonacci (Leonardo Pisano) posed the following problem in his treatise Liber Abaci (pub. 1202):
How many pairs of rabbits will be produced in a year, beginning with a single pair, if in every month each pair bears a new pair which becomes productive from the second month on?
It is easy to see that 1 pair will be produced the first month, and 1 pair also in the second month (since the new pair produced in the first month is not yet mature), and in the third month 2 pairs will be produced, one by the original pair and one by the pair which was produced in the first month. In the fourth month 3 pairs will be produced, and in the fifth month 5 pairs. After this things expand rapidly, and we get the following sequence of numbers:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, ...


This is an example of a recursive sequence, obeying the simple rule that to calculate the next term one simply sums the preceding two:

F(1) = 1
F(2) = 1
F(n) = F(n – 1) + F(n – 2)

Thus 1 and 1 are 2, 1 and 2 are 3, 2 and 3 are 5, and so on.
This simple, seemingly unremarkable recursive sequence has fascinated mathematicians for centuries. Its properties illuminate an array of surprising topics, from the aesthetic doctrines of the ancient Greeks to the growth patterns of plants (not to mention populations of rabbits!).
What a creative mathematician is our God!

I thought Claude was quite unique in his interest of Fibonacci series and Mandelbrot sets etc. But I see I was quite mistaken. It's all Greek to me. :) But I'm glad that you guys are enjoying this topic.

Marcia

P.S.  At more than an hour late, perhaps I should have just said happy birthday.

Scott raises an important point. What he is saying underscores the fact that what was lacking in many of those around GG was not so much discernment as it was courage. We failed to act despite what we knew. I speak this to my own shame...



I owe the man a great debt. The recent availablity of over 2 Gigs of processing power notwithstanding, I still like to thumb throught my "big red monster" every now and then...a true tour de force...


More like Italian and French...! ;D ;D ;D

Verne

MAY 31ST: 11:07 PM EST:
This was taken from the  Danger Math and Science in the Bible Thread: It was from the very first post.



THE POINT TO THIS POST IS:
We need to interpret the Bible ourselves for today and realize that humans wrote it at a particular place and time and within a culture that no longer exists.  In Genesis is says that the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would die.  We do not take that literally and INTERPRET that death as spiritual.  We no longer greet one another with a holy kiss even though Paul tells the saints to.  We no longer own slaves and the role of women has thankfully changed in society.  The Apostle Peter says we are to obey those in authority over us but in Acts he stood against the authorities.  The point to this paragraph is we must interpret the Bible ourselves and decide what God’s will is for us.  He has given us a brain and He wants us to use it so that life can be "a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."

My Question has anyone ever read books by
"GRANT JEFFERIES"
He makes a very interesting argument about codes being in the BIBLE:

Especially if you can get pass, the fact he predicted that  Jesus would return in 1987.
Otherwise the research team, he spoke of was very well written.
Though this would interest you Mathmatical, Computerize, and Science Buffs out there.
In one of this author books, he speaks on Mathematics , Science, History, etc in the Bible.
It just might interest you in seeing what he says.

Just passing on some information.

Someone lent me "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin and Doron Vitstum that was along that line.  The premise was that in looking for phrases in the Bible in a manner similar to a "word search" game, modern events were predicted.  

I never read the book so I can't give an educated opinion.  I lived through an age where we sincerely believed that codes in the Bible made Henry Kissinger the anti-Christ and that when 10 nations joined the European Common Market the rapture would happen immediately (there have been over 10 nations in the ECM for some time now).  

So, this type of book didn't exactly grab me.  Others apparently liked it as it was on the NYT bestsellers list.  On the other hand, many thought the Prayer of Jabez was the cat's pajamas, too.

     By & large, the New York Times bestsellers list is not the best guide to edifying godly literature.  Not as the world giveth give I unto you.

     ...just an observation... ;)

al

 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents:


It is always fun to go back and read some of the old threads.
It will never cease to amaze me how som epeople calling themselves Christians, and who claim to believe the reliability of the Scriptural message of salvation through faith in Christ, can in the same breath make the case that the Scriptural record is filled with lies and inaccuracies.
Will Jones was one such interesting person.
I was reading my Bible in the book of Exodus and as I came across the passgae describing what the Egyptian sorcerers did I found myself podering the question:

"Do I really believe this happened?"

The answer was of course an instant and unequivocal YES!

How is it that people considering themselves of great spiritual and intellectual erudition appear to lack the simple understanding that no intelligent Christian would subject the Word of God to the constraints of a mere scientific paradigm, and that therfore such a paradigm must necessarily fail in its attempts to fully explain what clearly transcends it??!!
An amusing blast from the past...!   :)
Verne

Maybe it is a simple matter of your mis-understanding Will's point. ???
Maybe it is because Will is "no intelligent Christian". :-\
Maybe it is because Will simply disagrees with you on certain matters. :o

I know Will Jones from his time in the Ottawa assembly.  He is a believer.  He was 'involved' in the campus ministry.  He was smart enough to not allow the leaders to 'control' his life decisions and leave the assembly.  He lived in a 'training home' and yet he did not succumb to the assembly mentality.

Marcia

Believing the Bible at as its Worth is a gift of faith.  But in Matthew Jesus tells us to consider the cost of following him. In considering the cost, I believe Jesus wants us to ask him the hard questions, questions that would interfer with the ultimate decision to follow him.  Will sounds like a Christian with a very personal relationship with Jesus, An emotional passionate Christian.
Even the intellectual Christian will asked Jesus and seek advice to the burning questions.
I love reading Revelation, I can understand Revelations because I take Revelations at its face value. Simple I believe what it says. I do not have to deeply analyze it inside and out. Yet I have been told that not the way to study Revelation. There are many who will argue the bible in certain doctrines. Like pre, during, post tribulation rapture.  It is good to get insight of what other people are thinking, Then with Gods telling you giving you the peace of mind and heart, God will ultimately show the individual heart which way is the true way of faith.  Certain doctrine like when the rapture is going happen is not an issue the issue to be firm in is Salvation. Who Jesus is. and what He represents. He is the Son of God, who came to earth as a human baby, grew up with one purpose to offer the permanet sacrifice on the cross for my sins, even though I was not worth or deserved it, making a way for me to receive salvation, and reconcilation with my Heavenly Father. Jesus is my Lord, and King. That is what is important. There are certain believe of the Bible that are absolute truth, then because of the different branches of the Christian faith, there are certain doctrine (usually  man made), that we can agree to disagree for the unity of Faith in Jesus Christ.  I think until Christian stop this petty bickering, over issues that separate us, and start respecting and uniting over Salvation truths , then how will the lost world ever believe us.
I think there is no harm in exploring or questioning. That way we can put the hand to the plow and not look back, because we have the peace that Jesus is the answer, and our journey of faith has been plowed into fertile ground.
Sorry if I took an writer licence in trying to make my point.

Lenore

What exactly is there to mis-understand? He writes quite clearly.


Clearly more intelligent that the average person.


Now just how silly can you get?  :)
Anyone denying the inerrancy of Scripture does not simply disagree with Verne Carty Marcia, and you know it.



Therefore...??!




I think it depends on how you question and/or explore.
It is one thing to disagree on what we believe a passage of Scripture to be actually saying.
It is another thing to say I fully understand what the Bible says but deem it scientifically and historically erroneous.
Will made it quite clear that this was his position, Marcia's obfuscation notwithstanding.
Anyone one who postulates that the Bible is fallible has no basis on which to claim saving faith; I don't care what they call themselves. Surprising that this should even be a matter of debate among Christians.

Verne

Now, Verne, you know that there is nobody more agreeable than I ::) ;).  But I think your statement above over-extends itself.  The basis of saving faith is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in the entire Bible.  As Christ is the living Word of God, saving faith and belief in the Word are the same, but learning to recognize the validity of all scripture as also being the Word, may take considerable time, and MUST be preceeded by saving faith-- is, in fact, impossible without it.

My personal faith in the Bible had faltered during my "wilderness" years, and you, dear Brother,did not deem me unsaved but were instrumental in bringing me back to the Truth.  I may have never thanked you for that-- please allow me to do so now...

In Christ,
al

You are right Al. The statment may have been too strong.
I still really have trouble believing someone is saved who thinks the Bible contains lies and inaccurate information.
While you are right that we cannot judge the condition of another person's heart, I still do not understand why a person who believes the Bible errs on other subjects, can nottheless be absolutely trusted in what it teaches about the way of salvation. I think true salvaton brings an awareness of the divine nature of the Holy Scriptures.
It may be that the proper way to view such folk is as advised in Romans:


Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. Roman 14:1

I will tell you frankly that of all the people I have met claiming to be Christians yet holding the position that there are some teachings of the Bible to be rejected, invariablly the issue turned out to be that the Bible disagreed with their position on some moral issue. Without exception, it was Biblical antagonism to some viewpoint held, and which would have to be conceded if indeed the Bible spoke unerringly on all matters. I could be wrong about this I admit, but my own expereince suggests otherwise. Thanks for the thought-provoking post Al. I appreciate it.
Verne

Al, you make a very good point.

Verne, I read the top post on this thread.  I understood that Will was commenting that we do not take everything literally and should not be 'dogmatic'.  E.g. Do you greet others with a holy kiss?  Do you take a little wine for your stomach?  We have the Word to guide us and intelligence to help us make up our minds for ourselves.  That is what I understood he was attempting to communicate.

Blessings,
Marcia

Too bad that you are trying to speak for Will.
Your stated interpretation does not represent his position and that would be evident if you had followed the fairly lengthy debate he and I had. I now regret deleting those posts.
Will Jones believes, and stated as much via specific examples, that the Bible contains errors of scientific fact.
He dismisses the Genesis record of the creation as neither consistent nor accurate so I am glad that you have such confidence of his faith. I would ask, faith in what?
Verne


p.s. Here are the man's own words Marcia so I am not sure exactly what you read...


Well...?

p.s By the way, his examples of the supposed facutal inconsistencies in the gospels betray what is generally the case about people who hold his position, namely, he does not know his Bible nearly as well as he thinks he does...there are prefectly sound and reasonable answers to those questions...known by any first year Bible student....
It is really also remarkable that he equates allegorical and figurative language with factual inconsistency  ???
That the Bible employs the former is not at all in dispute!

I have come across the same phenomenon with people who want to justify in some way what they are doing, whether they are believers or not. They only way they can do that is to say that the Bible has had the defilement of the human touch. Interesting thing about that, is that if the Bible is fallible, why doesn't it say what they want it to?  ;)

Verne, what you have quoted is the conclusion of an essay on Inerrancy.
Will, I am interested to know if you agree 100% with that conclusion.

The top post by Will states:

Instead of asking Will if he agrees with what he has clearly stated ( a pointless excercise in my opinion), why don't you as a Christian tackle his query about the Bible being contradictory in its teaching regarding the doctrine of Christ's ministry and the OT law. Here is what he stated:


He assumes the teachings are contradictory.The answer obviously is that both are inerrant as any true child of God knows is the case with the Holy Scriptures.
Well instructed Christians need to spend more time presenting the truth, rather than entertaining unscriptural and confused propositions. Have at it...
Verne

p.s. just to help you get started, you might remind Will that any text  taken out of context, in nothing but a pretext...a principle apparently entirely lost on him...(the particular audience being the critical consideration in this case)

*** PART ONE OF THREE ***

On this thread, the following was posted by vernecarty on March 12, 2005, 09:10:38 a.m.:

“It is always fun to go back and read some of the old threads.  It will never cease to amaze me how som epeople [sic] calling themselves Christians, and who claim to believe the reliability of the Scriptural message of salvation through faith in Christ, can in the same breath make the case that the Scriptural record is filled with lies and inaccuracies.
Will Jones was one such interesting person.”

It also never ceases to amaze me how some people calling themselves true believers or Fundamentalists, and who claim that one has to believe that the Bible is correct in all things (including cosmology and science) in order to be a child of God, can in the same instance go to great lengths to hold onto their beliefs by skirting around dealing with specific contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible that I have clearly pointed out in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  Verne Carty is one such interesting person.   ;)

Part TWO

Vernecarty, a while back you wrote on this thread, “I wonder if Will will come back and join the fun.”  Well, stop wondering, Verne, I'm back at the keyboard.   :)  Really, I have not gone anywhere.  I am still waiting for you to deal with the Biblical contradictions I posted on the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  You said you would deal with each contradiction one by one over time, but, on the contrary, you only attempted (unsuccessfully) to deal with just a few of them.  In fact, instead of dealing with the issues I raised, you deleted all your posts as you yourself admit in this thread.   (Just in case you delete more of your posts, you did state to Marcia on March 12, 2005,  “I now regret deleting those posts.”)

Why would you go and delete all your posts?  (I am asking out of interest and please understand this post is not a personal attack.)  Perhaps you deleted all of your posts because you realized that the tone of your postings discredited your cause of pushing the theory of Biblical inerrancy.  Or another guess is it might have something to do with your inability to refute the simple arguments I put forth.  You were clearly frustrated and bounced around from subject to subject and even from thread to thread without dealing with most of the issues head on.

It was clear by your past (and now deleted) postings that the notion of Biblical inerrancy in all matters was a cause you took very seriously because you stated on many occasions that you had difficulty believing that someone can be saved but not believe that the Bible itself is the inerrant Word of God.  You were concerned about the verity of my salvation; therefore, why abandon the debate so easily and even try to erase your role in our debate?   I think that deleting all your posts, without any proper explanation for your actions, was very irresponsible of you because it makes the thread more difficult to read.   But [tongue in cheek] I can understand that you may have deleted all your posts because of their harsh tone and the fact that they did not offer adequate proof to support your own position.  ;)

I would like to thank those who came to my defense when Verne, yet again, called my salvation into question simply because I do not believe what he believes.  Verne also wrote, “It is one thing to disagree on what we believe a passage of Scripture to be actually saying.  It is another thing to say I fully understand what the Bible says but deem it scientifically and historically erroneous.”  Tsk, tsk, Verne. The Bible, in many ways, is a very accurate document, but  it is unfair for you to misinterpret my beliefs by claiming I believe that the Bible is “scientifically and historically erroneous.”  On the contrary, as I have said many times before, I have a very deep reverence for the Bible, but do not deem it inerrant in ALL matters of science.  I believe it is wrong on minor points of fact regarding science, etc. that do no necessarily interfere with the message it is communicating.  

So how can I believe the message of the Bible that describes the Word but not believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?  I will give a few examples.  (1) If I am a witness in a court case and a different witness steps forward to describe many detailed events I was a part of, they should (unless they are liars, or have a poor memory or terrible powers of observation) describe what I experienced BUT they will probably describe a slightly different version with slightly different details. I can say that the overall story they have told is true, but not exactly right or “the Truth” as I experienced it.  That is, I can believe in the main details of what they say without having to agree 100% on every detail.  With this example in mind, apply this to the Gospels that do vary in detail and time lines when they are closely studied and compared.  (2) Now think of a Hollywood movie like THE TWIN TOWERS.  It may not be correct in every small detail, but it supposedly does a pretty good job of describing what did actually happen for those who did not experience the events of 9/11 directly.  Thus, I can believe the overall story of this movie, but don't have to believe every detail. A Christian can believe the message and stories of the Bible without having to believe that Genesis is scientifically correct in terms of its cosmology, etc.  

Contrary to your opinion, Verne, I can easily believe the message of the Bible without having to believe every detail of the Bible.  When Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world—which it is not—I can still believe what he said about spiritual things because he was speaking according to the knowledge that first century Jews had at the time.  Through my own studies, I have come to see that some “facts” I was told by my teachers were incorrect, but it does not mean I disregard everything they have ever taught me.  You can believe in George Washington as a historical figure and the things he did, but you don't have to believe all the bunk about him chopping down his dad's cherry tree and never telling a lie.  (He was, after all, a politician.)  In other words, I don't stop believing in George Washington or Jesus simply because humans may have embellished certain events or may have made mistakes when attempting to relay what did in fact happen.  I don't call these mistakes “lies” as you do.  People are human and they make mistakes when they attempt to relay, even under inspiration, what actually happened.

*** PART THREE OF THREE ***

As another poster has pointed out, Verne, you are going way too far to erroneously claim, “Anyone one [sic] who postulates that the Bible is fallible has no basis on which to claim saving faith.”  On the contrary, it is very easy for someone like me to accept the message of the Bible but not have to believe that Genesis 1-3 is historical fact.  Again, I gave you a whole list of examples in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread that prove to a 21st Century reader that the writers of the Bible were incorrect when they attempted to describe things according to the limited understanding of their times.   I am sorry that you have clearly refused to deal with the issues I raised by deleting all your posts, but by asserting that someone has to believe in the Bible to be saved is wrong.  You have no right to put such a condition on one's salvation.  In fact, the reason I have taken time to write on this board (as I have stated many times already) is to show that to dictate one must believe in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is a stumbling block that keeps people from God.  I quoted you in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread and you stated “If indeed the Bible does contain errors and those of us who contend it does not (original manuscripts) are obstructing some from receiving the message of the gospel, the charge against us is serious in the extreme.”  Please remember these words you tried to delete.
 
I say this in a caring tone:  Stop using your “shield of faith” as a pillow that is keeping you from accepting the fact that touting the Bible as the inerrant Word of God turns many people away from believing in the message of the Bible.  Non-Christian laypersons of the 21st Century can clearly see that the sun cannot stop in the sky for one day or that a window in heaven does not open up to let rain fall.  Neither is the earth flat as it is described in many places.  Again, go see all the examples I gave you in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  Due to the fact that you failed to refute the evidence I presented and that you ran away from our debate by deleting all your posts, you should (1) explain why you deleted all your posts, or (2) try to prove me wrong, or (3) drop your pillow of faith by accepting the fact that I am correct, OR (4) in the very least, stop insinuating that I am not a believer simply because I don't believe what you do.  I find that very offensive and short-sighted. 

But the real issue is are you willing to accept the truth even if it means changing your view?  Sadly, I think you will avoid responding to this post just as you avoided the debate because you are afraid to change.  If you do care about the truth, you can start by apologizing to me and others about deleting your posts and calling my salvation into question.  Next, you can go to the resurrection narratives in all four Gospels and create a timeline BY YOURSELF (as I have already done) and then you will see that there are indeed contradictions.  I have tried, and so have many others, to try and make a coherent chronological account of the Resurrection Story in all four gospels.  You can't do it because there are too many discrepancies.  BUT that doesn't mean we should throw out the Bible, we just need to re-evaluate our belief in the infallibility of the Bible.   :)

And, as I have stated so many times, I have taken time to write about this subject, not because I am trying to discredit the Bible or ignore its moral precepts; I am simply showing that it is a great disservice to the truth when Christians insist that people must believe in the Bible to believe in God who inspired the Bible.  To reshape your own words, Verne:  Because the Bible is a valuable but fallible document written by men that is inspired but not inerrant, Christians who contend that one must believe that the Scriptures are inerrant are themselves mistaken and are obstructing some from receiving the message of the gospel.

Sadly I no longer have the kind of available time I used to but I will use this specific example to illustrate a point or two Will.
You are correct that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world.
Any reasonably competent botantist will immediately point out that the seed of the orchid for example is smaller.
The question is legitimate because since we believe that Christ is God and therefore omniscient, if He has made a false statement of fact He clearly cannot be divine.

Here is the text you are referring to and notice in particular the clearly defined limiting context of verse 31 of Matthew 13

 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
 Which indeed is the least of all seeds:

Let's not even get into the specifics of the original language for the moment but answer me this question honestly Will.

Do you really intend to convey by your citing this particular example that you do not understand from the context, that the Lord Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all seeds in the world, but rather to a seed that someone in his audience might sow in his field?

There are many questions about the Sacred Scriptures for which I do not have answers.
This particular one is remarkably sophomoric I am afraid and illustrates the old adage:

Any text taken out of context is nothing but a pretext.

I wish you all the best in your intellectual pursuits my friend, I just can no longer afford the time it would take to engage you, nor am I convinced that it would in any way be edifying.
All the best.
Verne

Will,

I have read the posts that you have addressed to Verne.  Having done so, I must say that I get the impression that what you are doing is challenging Verne to "meet you behind the gym after school".

In other words, your tone is quite belligerant.

I wouldn't blame Verne for not wanting to enter in to that sort of thing.

Having said that, I must also say that I do not agree that if someone believes that the Bible is not correct in every detail of science or history that he cannot be a Christian.  We become Christians by new birth.  Our transient opinions about various Christian teachings do not turn the "new birth" switch on or off as we go through life.  Biblical inerrancy is not a belief that is essential to salvation.

One must remember that hundreds of thousands of people were saved in the early days of the church without ever seeing a Bible.  They came to faith through the preaching of the gospel.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

The position may at first glance appear extreme but if you think about it Tom, it cannot be otherwise.
A person's salvation is based on faith.
Faith indeed comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
Granted, the implication here is that I make no distinction between the spoken and written Word of God.
They are both, the Word of God.
It is not possible in my view, to attribute error to God's Word, yet have any basis for saving faith...
I know that you and I agree that this argument should apply only to the original autographs (which we clearly no longer possess) but if you listen to Will carefully, that is not his position.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God...
Verne

Verne,

You said, ""

I understand what you are saying here.  Since the Bible is our source of information about God and salvation, and if we attribute error to the Bible, how can we be sure about anything it teaches?

The answer lies in human nature.  People are not logic machines.  A few folks come to Christ through scientific evidence or logical argumentation.  Most of us, myself included, come to faith in Christ out of inner need.  We know we are sinners, we long for meaning and purpose, we receive the word joyfully and are eager to trust in the savior announced to us through the preaching of the gospel.

For many, that is as far as it goes.  Their assurance rests upon their subjective state.  But even this faith can grow and prosper, as they see the teachings of scripture about human beings validated in many life situations.

For others, myself included, the need to live with intellectual integrety causes them to move on and seek to ground their faith by studying and understanding the Bible and science.  This then causes them to come into contact with many ideas that contradict, or at least seem to contradict, things stated in the Bible. 

This leads some, (here I do not include myself), to adopt a position that the Bible is a vehicle for the transmission of a message rather than an  inerrant document.  This allows them to believe the message of salvation while also believing that there are scientific or historical errors in the early parts of the book.

IMHO, this position is not correct.  Those who espouse it are frequently responding to things they have read or seen on TV, but have not studied in depth.  For example, Will once posted something like, "It has been proved that the Pentateuch is a combination of four different documents".  In other words, he espouses the Documentary (or JEPD) Hypothesis.

This shows that he has accepted an idea that he does not understand very well.  First, one must ask, "Which Documentary Hypothesis?"  There are about as many versions as their are liberal Old Testament scholars.  This is exactly what one would expect for an idea that rests upon no documentary evidence at all.  Instead, it is the product of subjective presuppositions by people who already disbelieve the Bible.  It has also become somewhat passe' even in the circles where it was formerly accepted.

Another area where people run into problems with inerrancy is in what they believe about science.  Folks who proclaim that there is "scientific proof" that the Bible contains error frequently do not understand what science actually is, or hold to ideas that science itself has discarded.  They also are frequently unclear about what the Bible actually teaches.  Will posted a list of objections and challenged you to answer them.  I looked at the list, and noted that he believes that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.

This is an common belief.  It is not, however, a well grounded one.  The best way to deal with it is to simply ask, "Where?"   I am still waiting for a good answer to that one.

So, Verne, while you are correct that those who believe in an error filled Bible and a true gospel are forced to live with illogic and muddled thinking, the fact is that lots of Christians do so.

I must say that I reject this position.  But there is much more to say about that before anyone would be in a position to agree or disagree with me.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

No question about this, and it is a sad reality.
On Sunday I listened to an elder bring a message from the book of Isaiah and make several references to its being written to the Isrealites during their captivity for their comfort!
 Tom I know I don't have to give you a lesson in the chronology of Scripture nor on the difference between the pre-exilic and post-exilic writings but the incident illustrates the point you make.


The question for me is how much error does one allow with regard to the Written Word, and still retain any confidence that those who commit them are familiar with the Living Word. The Scriptures are after all they which testify of Him.
An Error of doctrine, history or chronology on our part is one thing.
We all are prone to those kinds of mistakes.
To confidently assert, particularly on a forum of presumably reasonably well-instructed believers, that the Author of the entire creation, is unable to correctly distinguish between an orchid seed and a mustard seed is quite another.
Are you confident that such a person has eternal life, the precise definintion of which is a knowledge of Jesus Christ?
My own view, and granted I may be mistaken, is that a knowledge of the Living Word, will powerfully inform and constrain the disposition we bring to the Written Word.
To accuse the Lord Jesus of being ignorant of the nature of the flora He created is an act of unspeakable contempt for both Him and the Scripture.
Verne

Verne,

You said:

It seems to me that this question can be answered by answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"  Paul answered it once, at Philippi.  "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

I doubt very seriously that the Philippian jailer had a firm position on Jesus' statment about the mustard seed.  After all, the discussion about inerrancy is a rather recent development.

You also said:

It seems to me that this enters into the question of the relationship between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature.  The mustard seed statement was, as you said, in the context of the well understood agricultural knowledge of first century Palestine. It was the smallest seed they knew of.

Were their things that Jesus did not know?  Well, he said that the Son of Man, (himself), did not know the day of his return.  That points to a self-limitation of his human knowledge.  It does not, however, point to his having given up his divine attributes.  So, I think the answer to your question lies in this area.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

True. The kind of discussion we are having could only occur in the context of presumption of a completed canon.
You are right that the arguments regarding inerrancy are relatively recent and that is because previously  a presumption of Scriptural infallibility generally obtained.
True men have misinterpreted and misunderstood Scripture, but the idea that Scripture makes false statements of fact of any kind, historical or scientific, remains unproven in my view.
One would think that the number of instances in which all the learned men were so certain that the Bible was in error, and subsequent discoveries confirmed its authenticity would move some folk to a position of greater humility regarding matters that may now appear problematic.
I attribute any apparent problem, and there are certainly a few, to my own limitations, not God's...


Kenosis is a difficult concept that I do not fully grasp. I am confident that whatever human limitations Christ endured, He was incapable of making a false statement, knowingly or out of ignorance - I believe He was not only sinless, but also impeccable...

And now I am in serious trouble for spending so much time here. Great to chat with you again Tom but duty's a calling. I hope you can engage Will in a fruitful exchange.

Verne

I may have made a few assumptions and so wanted to be a bit more explicit about this specific point Tom.
You are quite right that there are myriad ways and instruments by which the Spirit of God brings men to trust Christ.
Ultimately though, and in every single case without exception, the agency by which the new birth is mediated is the Word of God...(I Peter 1:23)
I know for a fact that many muslims come to salvation via a supernatural encounter.
This in no way changes the agency of their new birth...

If this seminal point is missed, so would everything else I attempted to show.
What we think of God's Word is critical...
Verne

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Author of creation was in error here ( although I think I have made a reasonable case that He was not), and that He was indeed either confused or ignorant regarding the various sizes of seed produced by earthly flora.
If He were indeed mistaken, we have conclusively demonstrated error on His part with regard to a testable postulate viz:

The mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world.


Your use of still as opposed to therefore, logically precludes the inference that Christ knew any better than other first century Jews, and used the language he did because of their limited knowledge (a matter in my view totally uncharacteristic of the Scripture).

I therefore pose this question:

Why on earth would you, or anyone else, accept an untestable ( therefore unprovable)postulate, namely assertions about spiritual things, from someone whom you had conclusively demonstrated to be in errror on  that which was testable?
Why would you trust Christ's promise of eternal life, indeed a spiritual matter, when you have found him to be in error regarding the mustard seed?
Any rational person would and should reject your "gospel" message.

You claim my position keeps people from God.

I contend that yours insults their intelligence.




Anyone who has studied the Bible knows that there are difficult passages.
Even the apostle Peter has some difficulty with Paul's writing which he acknowledged to be Scripture.
Anyone who has stuidied the Bible well, also knows that there are many reasonable answers to many matters that at first blush appear to be inconsistent.
Timelines are a good example. If you do not know for example that the Romans and the Jews marked time differently, you could end up looking quite foolish citing a time line inconsistency if you do not consider the intended audience of the particular gospel's author. I did until someone better instructed pointed this out to me.
I did respond at length to your indictment of Joshua's sun standing still by pointing out to you the man accurately reported what he observed.
We now of course understand that one of the ways God could have caused what he observed to take place is by simply slowing the rotation of the earth so that a twenty four hour time period would take forty eight hours - not nearly as elegant as another occasion on which the sun dial traveled backwards!
Of course having studied as much as you have, you are probably aware of all these possibilities. What I fail to understand is why you do not accept them.
Gotta go...
Verne

 

Verne,

It is a common practice of many Christian apologists to SELECTIVELY pick apparent contradictions, disprove them to their satisfaction, and then claim that the Bible has no contradictions, BUT, all the while, shying away from dealing with all the contractions that have been stated in the writings of non-Christian or “nominal Christian” writings.  When referring to the mustard seed parable, Verne, like so many apologists, you do not deal with all of the passages that describe the same or similar story or teaching.  Most apologists on the web quote Matthew 13 like you did, but completely avoid Mark 4:30-32 which is much harder to explain away:

He also said, ‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.’

In this particular version, different than the wording in Matthew and Luke's account, there is no limit placed on where the seed is planted, though one would assume that Jesus is speaking according to the understanding of his mostly agrarian listeners.   The issue, in Mark, is not so much where the seed is sown, but the fact that Jesus is showing through contrast how “the smallest of all seeds on earth” can become “the greatest of all shrubs.”  Whether Jesus was wrong on this point or was just speaking according to what his hearers would understand, does not bother me or upset my faith.  Jesus also did not know the date of his return as Tom mentions.  Could Jesus make a mistake?  Yes, if he was limited in knowledge.  Did he?  That is up to each person's interpretation. 

Thus, to answer the two questions you posed in your last post, it is easy for me to believe in Jesus' message without stumbling over the fact that he was speaking according to the knowledge of his time because I also believe the Bible is a book that was  inspired but written according to the culture and knowledge of its time.  I initially struggled with my faith when I began noticing discrepancies in the Bible because I was taught to believe the Bible was infallible.  You can imagine how relived I was when I came to understand that the notion of inerrancy was simply a recent, human attempt to raise the Bible's authority above the findings of science and scholarly studies, and that people throughout Church history, such as Luther who pointed out errors in the Bible and called into question certain books, did not regard the Bible as inerrant as Fundamentalists do.  I came, through a willingness to know the truth and question my own beliefs when experience and observation proved otherwise, to know the truth that inerrancy is a concept imposed on the Bible by humans who reacted against the scientific and scholarly findings of their time. To try and impose a belief in the Bible as inerrant on a public that generally disregards the spiritual and factual authority of the Bible insults a person's intelligence and puts a stumbling block in the way of those who may accept the gospel.   

When I find errors in cosmology, history, and the timeline of the Gospels or variance in Gospel stories (all of which I have observed), I attribute them to copyist errors, to human mistakes in recalling exact details or to the writers writing according to the knowledge they had at the time.  I don't expect perfection when the Gospels are compared and reveal different or varying accounts of the Jesus' life and teachings, especially the stories of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.  I am not bothered that in one Gospel the servants of the centurion come to Jesus, but in another Gospel it is the centurion himself who comes to Jesus. In one story (which I cannot recall at this time because I do not have my journals on hand) the three Gospels have Jesus in three different locations when the same event happened:  approaching the city, walking through the city, and leaving the city.  One should expect minor errors that do not conflict with the main details of what occurred, details that do not obscure the truth of what did occur.  It is the very nature of witnesses to provided slightly different statements about the same story—this is normal and should in fact be present.  But to state that there are no errors in a Bible that does contain errors of scientific and historical fact is to be an unreliable witness to the truth.

Tom,

If Marcia and Hugh are still chatting here, I believe they can attest to my very jovial, easygoing nature.  I am not some schoolyard bully as you intimate, Tom. :-)  My tone, with evidence by happy faces and my many statements that my tone should not be interpreted as anything but calm and friendly, has been mistakenly interpreted as belligerent because I am talking about a very sensitive subject that inflames many Fundamentalists:  the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. 

Even though I was away from this board for about three years, Verne, unless he also deletes or edits the posts I am referring to, was still talking about me, asserting that I was not saved and that I was mistaken in my views and even intimating that I held my views because I wanted to ignore the moral teachings of the Bible.  I have a right to reply to him, especially after Verne has run from the initial debate by deleting all of his posts yet still judges me, my views and my standing before God.  If anyone's tone should be called into question, I believe it should be his.  Perhaps this is one reason he deleted all of this past posts in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.

I am not expecting Verne or others to accept what I say because, like them, I was once blinded by strongly holding to the notion of Biblical inerrancy.  As I stated in past postings, I have put years of very intense study into this subject because I also did not want to change my views about the Bible.  However, after much prayer and meditation--as well as reading the Bible, Biblical scholars, history, and primary source documents such as Eusebius' Church History, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and Luther-- I came to see that the Bible does contain errors of science and historical fact.  Moreover, the 19th Century argument for the inerrancy of the Bible put forth by those at Princeton was an attempt to guard the Bible from the advance of science and the secular study of the Bible as literature. I also became firmly convinced that claiming the Bible is infallible ultimately discredits it in the eyes of the world, especially when believers like Verne insist that one must believe in a misguided, man-made belief to believe in the truth.  I state this in firm conviction, exercising my right to “let each be fully convinced in his own mind.”   

Even though Paul demands in Romans 14 that each should be fully convinced in their own minds, one of my main points in posting was to encourage others to take an honest look at their beliefs.  But, through my own experience, I am aware that our faith can blind us when we put belief in our version of truth above the desire to actively come to a better understanding of the truth.  This search for a clearer understanding of reality / the truth should include listening to what others, who believe differently than us, actually think about what we believe.  However, I should point out that I do not believe everything science or Bible scholars claim.  Tom, you misquoted my beliefs because I do not believe 100% in the JEPD Hypothesis, but I am convinced that there are, among other things such as two separate accounts of the flood, two separate creation stories (Gen. 1-2:3 versus Gen. 2:4ff) that do cause contradictions when they are compared:

Genesis 1:11-12, 25-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Now regarding your issues with cosmology, Tom.  When one examines the cosmology of Genesis, it is simply the common—but incorrect—understanding that the ancients had at the time.  I had more to say about this in my past posts in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  I even provided a link that showed a diagram of the cosmological understanding at the time:  a kind of dome that held back the waters above a flat, immovable earth that had four corners.  Yes, I know apologists offer up the old phenomenological argument, that the writers were just writing according to what appeared to be true to them.  Regardless of this weak attempt at disregarding so many errant cosmological statements in the Bible, it does not change the clear fact that writers' cultural understanding of cosmology was wrong; thus, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science because so many unscientific views of cosmology are expressed as accepted fact, not just poetic metaphor, etc.  Many writings written before and after the Bible show conclusively that the ancient view of cosmology was shared within cultures and incorrect by modern standards.

I do not, however, fault the ancient writers who wrote according to the understanding that they had at the time, but I do sigh and shake my head at those today who claim that everything, including science and history, is 100% correct.  Stating that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters of science and history invalidates the Bible in the minds of most modern laypersons (and many Christians) who do not regard the Bible as Fundamentalists do.  The Bible itself only claims it is inspired, not infallible.

A few more final comments:

It takes only one contradiction in the Bible to disprove the false notion of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  I have presented many, but certainly not all, errors of science and history in this thread and the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  Many websites offer even more.

I have enjoyed this discussion and, before God, I have never written anything here in anger.  On my side, this discussion has never been about trying to "win" or prove anything to anyone because each of us, as Paul wrote, has to be fully convinced in our own minds.  Rather, I have constantly encouraged others to question their own beliefs and be open to new ideas that I have presented here.  Accept them or reject them, but be open to the truth. 

Read books that offer a variety of views, not just your own beliefs.  Be willing to be wrong.  Be willing to change because nobody has perfect knowledge now.  Be willing to step off the Fundamentalist bandwagon of popular belief. A belief is not right simply because many people believe in it. From personal experience, I know it is not easy to leave the comfort of our most cherished beliefs.  But, through continued study, we can come to a better understanding of the truth.

II Timothy 2:15 admonishes, “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Is it right to state the Bible is infallible when it is clear, through careful and honest study, that it is not infallible?  No, it is not right because promoting such beliefs can distract people from the message of the Bible and keep them from experiencing the love and forgiveness of God.

“And that from a child you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15). It is the message of the Bible, not a belief in an inerrant book, that is able to lead us “unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (II Tim. 3:16f).
The Bible has spiritual authority in doctrinal and moral matters of living a good life before God, but nowhere does the Bible claim to be infallible or inerrant in matters of science and history.  Nowhere does Jesus state that “One day THE BOOK will come.”  He came, he said he would return, and thank God that people, under the inspiration of God, provided such an amazing, inspired, life-changing book that allows us to get a glimpse into Jesus' amazing life, a life he sacrificed for all who would believe in the love and forgiveness of God.

 :D 

 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: Mark 4:31


The question nonetheless remains Will, whether you view the passage in Mark or in Matthew.
Is the Lord comparing the size of the mustard seed to all other seed, or to all other seeds that the farmer sows...
Amazing that you do not think that context should control comprehension. Those are the three Cs of true literacy Will and as a writer you should know that...
Let me see if I can help you out here.
If both passages had simply said:

"It is like the mustard seed, which is the smallest of seeds on the earth",

with no conditional clause whatever, you would have a point.
Capisce?

In other words, of all the seeds that folks the Lord was addressing, Would Sow, there were none on earth smaller.
Let me try one more little suggestion for you my erudite friend.
Go and did what I did in trying to understand this passage.
Try and find out what kinds of seeds were sown by folk in Jesus' time and do a bit of study regarding the varying seed sizes.
Have you?
As I indicated Will, there are many difficult passages of Scripture for which I presently do not have fully satisfactory answers.
Nothing you have presented in my opinon, warrants your conclusion that the Bible commits errors of scientific or historical fact. Just my opinion.
By the way, neither was anything I posted in response to you done with any anger whatsoever. It is quite o.k. for reasonable adults to disagree.  :)


Verne

p.s I looked at the first of your Genesis contradictions and apparently you do not distinguish the garden of Eden from the creation of flora at large.
What is it about the narrative that warrants such an incredible leap?

The Lord God planted a garden.......!!!

I must say I am amazed...!

Mine, too. 
This is good reading, Verne.


Moonflower

Will,

1. You wrote:

Perhaps I did misstate your beliefs.  However, you have made statements in previous posts arguing for this theory.  Check out April 11, 2003 under "Egyptian Mythology".

2. You also wrote:

Your belief that Genesis merely reproduces the cosmology of the ANE is understandable.  One finds the "three story universe" concept repeated over and over in the books of Biblical critics.  Diagrams of said universe are to be found on the web.  However, this view is demonstrably factually incorrect.  It is a "factoid": a belief that has been repeated so many times that it becomes general knowledge that is untrue.  A more well known example is the idea that more spousal abuse happens on New Year's day than any other day.

I posted a link to a paper I wrote that shows that: 1. There are a variety of views on the cosmology of the ANE; 2. The Bible does not repeat those views.

Did you read it?  It does not appear that you did when you keep repeating the same ideas.

Here, fyi, it is again.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/tom_maddux_the_three_story_universe.pdf

I would suggest that you do so...you might learn a few facts that bear on this question.

BTW, I am personally acquainted with two astronomers and four physicists who accept Biblical cosmology as factual.  Both of the astronomers have research backgrounds in cosmology, ie, the origin and nature of the universe.

I am aware that this does not "prove" anything.  But I believe that it certainly shows that Biblical critics do not have an "open and shut" case for their skepticism.  These folks could not be called "inflamed Fundamentalists" by any reasonable person.

3. Regarding the "old phenomenological argument"...

You seem to place much stock in the fact that it is "old".  The idea that the earth is a sphere is old...does that make it untrue?  This is merely the chronological fallacy.

You keep dismissing the idea of phenomenological language by saying it is merely an attempt to "explain away" factual errors in the Bible.

Do you use the words, "sunrise" and "sunset"?   Of course you do...while at the same time you know the phenomena are caused by the earth's rotation.  A question, Will.  If you and everyone else use phenomological language, why couldn't biblical authors do so?

You seem to believe that you understand the motivation and mental process of those who defend the factuality of the Bible.  Why don't you tell us just how you know this.  I would be most interested to read about it.

The real issue is not whether this argument is new or old, or why people use it.  The real issue is whether or not it is true!  Why don't you address this?  Give us some good arguments against it.  But I would suggest that you read my paper before repeating the nonsense about the "three story universe".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I would be grateful if you indulge me in one final question.
Let us assume for the sake of argument, that you are indeed correct and that the Bible does contain provable errors of science and history.
Were the individuals who gave us the Scripture under God's inspiration in your opinion, when these errors were transmitted to us?
Verne

p.s.

 
I am curious. If you believe the above statement, why?
On what basis do you ascribe spiritual and moral authority to the Bible?

Hi Will!

  I have avoided making comment here because I didn't wish to pile-on against your arguments, but feel like some questions are not being asked of you that might be important.

1.) Why do you think that it is so "dangerous" to accept that the Bible is without error in it's original form?

  Now, I realize that former members of the Assembly (which after all this forum exists for) do need to develop "critical thinking skills", as you have mentioned, but a another form of danger can be created by trying to suggest that only my reasoning is truly critical thinking, and all other is blind faith styled "Fundamentalism."

  The danger is that one begins to doubt not only "historical and scientific" statements but everything one reads; including the doctrinal and moral absolutes.  I think Verne has correctly asked the question," how do we know which passage is inspired or not?"  There are those "Christians" today who reject the "Fundamentalist" interpretation of verses that condemn sex outside of marriage, abortion, etc. via a rejection of the acceptance of what the Bible clearly says.  This kind of lack of clear reading of the text can take advantage of that within us that would turn our own opinions into God's will---- in a sense, we start to help God to evolve into an image of our own making.


  2.) Is persuading Christians to reject inerrancy a positive contribution to a Christian's faith?

    I am not saying that those involved in Neo-Evangelicalism are not Christians, well intentioned, or good people, rather I think our chief focus should be on the Evangel part, vs. the Neo.  We are called to "preach the Gospel", not to make people erudite and sophisticated modern philosophers of ancient literature (though I most certainly am not opposed to having these debates on a secondary level).

   It seems that this topic of Neo thought is the only reason that you find to post here, and as such, has become an all absorbing fascination with you (something I have been also accused of in another setting ;)).

    As you admit, the Bible is primarily interested in communicating the eternal spiritual values of who God is, His Gospel, the moral values of this God, etc.  If this is the case, why bother to expend one's entire energy to argue that the medium with which we receive this knowledge is somehow not to be wholly trusted?  Better, and certainly more humble, to take the position that there is a whole lot we just don't understand and maybe our "critical thinking" is not all it's cracked up to be.

   In the Assembly we blindly followed a false authority, and for former members this can create a kind of crisis in their lives:  who do I believe?!  I could say, "I reject all authority and will become an authority to myself."  Since the bible was misused by GG to assert that false authority a further difficulty is created in the soul of the member after leaving.

  Part of recovery (if we're interested in helping former members in their faith) is to help them discover that the Bible is a reliable authority and a blessed fount of living waters for their wounded hearts!  I would like to hear you endorse this fact and gain your commitment to an effort to minister this kind of help from time to time.

 Keep your secondary scholarly studies up, with humility, but keep in step with the Holy Spirit and align your writing with the message of eternal life as the primary goal!

                                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

You raise some good points Mark.
Mechanistic naturalism is a strange thing to behold in a professed believer.
It is clear to even a casual reader of the Scripture that what is narrated therein frequently and unapologetically absolutely violates scientific paradigm, whether it be iron floating on water, or a dead man rising from the dead.
Nontheless, in one  breath neo-evangelicas affirm the Bible as a divinely inspired book, and in the next contend that the God who inspired men to speak His Word could not get the cosmology right.
I think these folks are trying to have it both ways but this is simply not possible.
One of the things that clearly attests to the Bible's divine orgin is its prophetic power.
Even the rankest of sceptics, many of whom spent a lifetime trying to prove that the book of Daniel was written after the events it accurately prophesied, and that Belshazzar did not historically exist, had to end up eating crow as it were, on this issue of prophecy.
Consider this.
No neo-evangelical in his right mind, or spirit, would deny the prophetic nature of the Bible.
Nontheless, these same folk concede that God is thus able to inspire men to speak with absolute precision about things often far in the future, but is incapable of inspiring them to speak with absolute precision about things in the present!

What am I missing????!!!!
Verne

I was hoping for a bit more clarification on this assertion as I did not want to mis-understand your intent.
One could infer that by "spiritual authority" you mean to imply that the Bible should  be viewed as a sort of "how-to"  manual of living a "good life before God".
By implication it would follow that on "non-spiritual" matters the Bible has no authority.
This would certainly be the case if it commits errors of fact on matters of science and history as you allege so I think I am understanding you correctly.
I must say that I have come to a different conclusion on even the question of what you call the Bible's "spiritual authority".
Far from being any kind of "how-to" manual", it seems to me that it lays out the case of the utter impossiblity of any human being to attain to the righteous standard of God, that is to keep the law. As a manual, per se, the Bible would be nothing more than a scathing indictment of the entire human race for it proclaims that there is none that doeth good, not one.
What is my point?
Someone once said that authority without power is pathetic.

What in my view, makes the case most powerfully for Biblical authority is not so much its power to teach, as its power to transform...
Verne

One of the most frustrating aspects of discussing the Bible with some Christians is that they never get past endless discussions about the Bible as merely literature.
Frankly, debates about matters like inerrancy and infallibility are dealing with milk and not meat.
It is an indisputable fact, that despite the numerous hints and examples given to us in Scripture, many Christians never come to a realization that the narrative, whether it be poetic, prosaic, or historical, is ultimately intended to teach us spiritual truth.
Now I fully agree with Tom that we have to be extremely careful and not go beyond what Scripture teaches with regard to matters of allegory. Nonetheless, I have always been amused by folk who accuse others of “spiritualizing” Scripture.

The fact of the matter is – All of Scripture is spiritual!

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…

What a tragedy it is that we can spend time debating the historicity of the Genesis narrative, and completely miss the larger lesson that what God does in the physical creation is intended to teach us spiritual truth.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead... Rom 1:20 :


Genesis mirrors God’s creative work in redemption!

The physical work is a type of the spiritual reality.

Hebrews confirms this remarkable principle in talking about the earthly tabernacle.

I dare say that very few of us could trace the incredible creative work of God in the book of Genesis, ( each stage proceeding by the power of God’s spoken word, ultimately culminating, just as in the physical creation, in the image of God appearing on the final day in the greater work of the new creation) and find its correspondence in the new birth.

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you…

I am going to leave that alone for now and raise a question I have regarding the gap theory of Genesis.
I know it has its problems and there has been at least one very excellent doctoral thesis (I believe it was published as a book) that marshals some very strong arguments against it.
Many argue that this theory was advanced simply to try and make accommodation for the long geological ages that seem to be indicated by geological data.
None of the arguments I have read against it though, ever deal with one of the most critical questions about the Genesis narrative regarding creation, namely-

When were angels created?

We know that angelic beings are not eternal.
Only God has that attribute.
If you believe as I do that, that the first verse in chapter one of Genesis signals the beginning of time, then it would logically follow that if angelic beings are not eternal, they must have been created after the “beginning”.
These creatures are being described as being present and shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:4-7)

When were angels created?

Matters get even more complicated for gap theorists since Exodus 20:11 clearly states:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…

Unless the heaven referred to here is limited to earth’s immediate celestial environs, this would suggest that angels were created during the six days!
I am just thinking out loud here and do not have good answers to this.
Better instructed comments are most welcome!
Verne

Verne,

You said:

I believe that you need to add something to your thinking about this issue.  While it is true that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that this included all the matter/energy/space/time, it could well be that angels do not need any of these to exist!

God is the only eternal being.  That means that his existence must be indepent of the dimension of time we know.  God is an uncreated spirit.  Angels are created spirits.  Spirits, as far as we know, do not need our universe to exist. 

God, who exists separately from our universe, penetrates it.  It might be the same for angels.  Theologians use the term, "non-local presence".  What they mean is that a spirit being, (angel or demon), sometimes manifests itself in an earthly location.  But where is it?

Speaking of a physical being, the location can be described.  Where does a spirit being start or end?  Does it have length?  Height?  No one knows.  It is possible that their existence is entirely separate from the universe but they can penetrate it something like the way God does.

I guess if we needed to know, God would have told us.  I think I will add this to my list of questions to ask when I arrive.   ;)

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Holy smoke! er...angels! That never occurred to me...talk about thinking outside the box!  :)
Verne

I was going to deal with a few more of Will's supposed Bibllical contradictions when it suddenly dawned on me that I was being baited!  :)
It has to be obvious to any thinking person that Will is not the first person to raise these kinds of objections and that there are probably very good answers given by far more able men than any posting here.
Folk will usually find what they are really seeking.
I don't mean to imply that Will is cynical but I think something is amiss.
Case in point.
A few years ago Will asserted with great confidence that the Genesis record was flawed because although the Sun was not created until the fourth day, the record indicated the passage of night and day prior to the fourth day.
For someone making such confident statements about science, that particular comment really surprised me and made it clear that he had not really thought about that particular objection and was probably just repeating something he had read somewhere.
Although I had never heard that particular objection raised before, a mere moment's reflection immediately unmasked the flawed reasoning and apparently unrecognized assumptions.
It was clear from his comments that he had assumed:

1. That the sun was the only source of light in the creation.
2. Given an alternate source, alternating periods of light and darkness(which is after all, how day and night were defined, could not be marked by such a source.

The luminaries of the fourth day merely now regulated what already existed, namely. day and night.

I was quite disappointed by his deafening silence when I pointed out his error on this particular matter.
In fact, I have yet to hear Will admit that he has been mistaken on any of the numerous "contradictions" he has cited, and/or that any of his objections have been reasonably answered.
Why is that?  :)
Verne

PART ONE -- VERNE WRONGLY CLAIMS I "BAITED" HIM

OK, Verne, you have one final question, but I have already answered it in many places on the "Egyptian Mythology" thread.  For example, on April 01, 2003, I talked about the notion of inspiration.  I am sorry, but I am not going to reiterate what I have already written.  You can also check out the "Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy" thread, a thread that is still readable even though you have deleted all your posts on it that pertain to our "Biblical Inerrancy" discussion.

Even though I have tried many times to withdraw from posting on this board, it is clear that you do not wish me to withdraw from this discussion.  Yet, you are telling the other posters here that I have "baited" you into answering me.  Come on, brother.  I am shocked that you would say something like this after you have the audacity to question my salvation and intentions.  Perhaps you are simply joking, but you are clearly wrong in this case.  Here are some points that disprove your assertion that I have “baited” you:

(1) Initially I was speaking to Al, Arthur and MGov--you came into the discussion after them
(2) After you addressed me and asked me questions and made comments, I replied
(3) Three years ago, YOU wanted me to offer up clear contradictions and I did as you requested
(4) I wanted to rest my case and stop posting until you dealt with all the contradictions that you said you would deal with one by one
(5) Rather than doing what you said you would do, you deleted all your posts without giving any explanation as to why
(6) In the discussion and, after you deleted all your posts, on many occasions you misquoted me and my beliefs, and you called into question my salvation and motivation in disregarding the notion of Biblical inerrancy
(7) I read the board periodically why YOU "baited" me with comments to return after being away from the board for such a long time.  I returned to set a few things straight—particularly your desire to play God by trying to guess what was on my heart in terms of my salvation and motivation.
(8 ) I had intended to stop posting here after making a few more final comments but you had one more question and then had the audacity to intimate “something is amiss” and that you were “baited”

Really, Verne, if I really enjoyed baiting you so much why would I stop posting on the board for the past three years?  I stopped posting on this board because I believe it had served its purpose of providing information and reflection on the Assembly as well as the fact that I was not comfortable with the direction it seemed to be going in.  What caused me to return was the fact that you deleted all your posts on the "Egyptian Mythology" and "Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy" threads but yet you still continued to mention me and my beliefs in a negative manner (e.g., March 12, 2005), particularly calling into question my standing before God.  If you read my posts in April and May of 2003, especially in the "Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy" thread, it is clear that I was feeling hounded by you due to the tone and content of your posts and the fact that you often had one more question to ask or the need to make one more comment that you knew I would have to address after I tried to say goodbye.

PART TWO -- VERNE TRIES TO CAST DOUBT ON MY "CYNICAL" INTENTIONS BY CLAIMING "SOMETHING IS AMISS" WHEN ALL I WANT TO DO IS STOP TALKING TO HIM

No, Verne, I have no interest whatsoever in baiting you.  In fact, I would like to suggest that we cease this discussion and simply agree to disagree.  We are both firmly convinced in our own minds and that is OK.  I am not threatened by the fact that you do not have the same beliefs as I do.  I have forgiven you for your tone and manner of discussion and even for calling into question my salvation and motivation for posting here.  Think what you want about my soul, Verne, but I would like to ask you to stop referring to me and my beliefs on this board because, on many occasions, you have misunderstood and misquoted me and my beliefs as well as made unfair judgements about my salvation and my motivation for not believing in Biblical infalibility.  Now, to top it all off, in your most recent post, you are accusing me of doing what you have done--run from a debate by avoiding certain issues. 

After saying that you thought "something is amiss" (as if I were hatching some dark plan), you incorrectly wrote that I had intenionally avoided answering your attempt at explaining away only one of the many problems in Genesis.  In fact, you were "quite disappointed" by my "deafening silence."  Verne, I hope you won't look too foolish, but I did give you a clear answer in the "Egyptian Mythology" thread when I said on April 14, 2003, "Sorry, but I found your explanation for the first apparent discrepancy unsatisfactory."  And I then went on to explain why.  I hate to say it, but I feel I often had to repeat myself again and again when talking with you. For example, you have asked me about my view of Biblical inspiration three times now. 


You wanted to know if any of the objections you offered were valid?  Perhaps you must have not deemed them valid if you deleted all of them on the other two threads. ;-)  I have already told you what I thought if you care to read my responses to you on the "Egyptian Mythology" and the "Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy" threads.  In the words of Luther, "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.  On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Something is amiss, Verne.  Let's look at the facts.  You deleted all of your posts without giving any explanation after committing yourself to deal with each discrepancy.  You, representing the "US" of Bibilical Inerrantists, are trying to paint me with the black brush of "THEM" through questioning my salvation and motivation for holding my beliefs (e.g., people who don't believe in inerrancy do so because they want to evade the moral teachings of the Bible).  And now you are even offering up little conspiracy theories by implying I am "cynical" and that "something is amiss" in the way I am posting.  Something is amiss.  You have already stated that you do not have enough time to deal with this in depth and that such discussion is no longer edifying YET you keep on posting about this subject.  At least we agree on this one last point:  I no longer have time for this discussion that I no longer find edifying.  I suggest we both no longer invest anymore time in this discussion that has clearly run its course.

Now, Vene, I will be "quite disappointed" if I cannot get "deafening silence" from you on this matter.  This discussion was over three years ago as far as I was converned.  We will have to agree to disagree.  You had your opportnity three years ago to deal with all the contrdictions you asked me to put forth but you did not do so.  Rather, you ran from our discussion when you deleted all of your posts on the "Egyptian Mythology" thread and on the "Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy" thread.  I am asking you to once again abandon further discussion on this issue.  Please do not refer to me personally or indirectly anymore and please do not make anymore judgments or offer conjecture on my salvation, motivation or beliefs because you have proven youself unable to do so objectively, accurately or fairly.

Our conversation has come to an end.  Imagine me turning around and walking away from you.  Anything else that is directed at me I will interpret as somebody shouting at my back.  Please let me do what I intended to do many times about three years ago--I want to say goodbye.  :-)

Mark C.,

Mark C. wrote, "It seems that this topic of Neo thought is the only reason that you find to post here, and as such, has become an all absorbing fascination with you."  On the contrary, I have attempted on many occasions to withdraw from discussion about the notion of Biblical inerrancy because I realized that the subject of inerrancy is a very sensitive subject for many.  However, many posters, such as Al, Arthur, MGov and Verne, kept asking me questions that I took time to respond to.  I did not expect the discussion to go on as long as it has or to go into such detail.  I have no desire to push some kind of "Neo" agenda as you seem to suggest.  As proof of this, I am ONCE AGAIN electing to withdraw from discussion on this forum.  I originally only intended to come on here to say hello and straighten up a few misconceptions, so my final goodbye is long overdo.

Before I go, let me say that I feel I have already answered your first question on this and the "Egyptian Mythology" thread.  What more can I say except then we all must interpret the Bible for ourselves and, as a result, we all have a slightly different (or very different) view of God, the Bible, theology, etc.  I am sorry for not going into greater depth, but, after rereading all the threads I was apart of, I see that I have had to repeat myself over and over again when people would ask questions about material I had already written about.

As for your second question, the question of Biblical inerrancy did not exist as an article of faith for a good portion of Christian history because the Bible did not exist or could not be read freely. Early Christians and the Early Church Fathers put their faith in God and Jesus (the true "Word of God") and all early creeds never mention the need to believe in an inerrant book.  The notion of Biblical inerrancy has been created by modern day Christians and has become a big issue, such a big issue that it has become part of the modern day creed or a necessary article of faith.  I have argued that preaching that one must believe in the Bible to believe in God has no historical veracity and actually keeps people from believing in the gospel.  A Christian  cannot be a light to the world and effectively preach the gospel to the world if the world itself disregards the authority of the Bible in scientific matters. I have already talked about the spiritual authority of the Bible and about preaching the gospel on the "Egyptian Mythology" thread and other threads.  I have given testimony to my reverence of the Bible and my belief in its message of living a higher, fuller life of love and forgiveness. Moreover, as I have stated before, my interest is not in attempting to persuade anyone to follow my beliefs--I hope to inspire others to think beyond the box of their own beliefs through a variety of means such as further study of Christian AND scholarly works.  I have admitted that we, as humans, are not perfect and could be wrong.  We just need to be open, not shut in and blinded by our own view of the truth.  I was once shut in by dogmatism, but luckily I escaped.  I once blinded myself to the evidence that was before my eyes, but luckily I desired to study to know the truth rather than believe what I had been taught was truth.  Because I went through that process and feel free, I simply wanted to share my experience with others here.  If I have offended anyone, as I was once offended when people mentioned contradictions in the Bible, then please forgive me.  I am, after all, only human and felt free to share my views.

I have said what I needed to say.  God bless.  :-)  After one last post to Tom, I will no longer be participating on this forum.

Tom,

You wrote,
   
They can and they do!  :-)  I have already stated that I do not blame the authors of the Bible for writing like this because they were writing according to their present knowledge and cultural understanding.  The Bible is the most influential book in the English language and has, over thousands of years, influenced the writings and speech patterns of Christendom and beyond.  But, if one reads the Bible honestly, I believe that the writers did not "lie" but were incorrect regarding their view of the universe.  There are plenty of instances of errant cosmology that I mention in many places on the "Egyptian Mythology" thread.  So... we will have to agree to disagree in this case.  But I personally believe that another example of a "factoid" you mentioned is "Biblical inerrancy." :-)

I generally do not discuss my beliefs about the Bible with Christians that I meet because, due to the popular but incorrect belief in Biblical inerrancy, I appear to be against the Bible that is directly associated with the Word of God.  "God is able to preserve His Word" is said over and over again.  "The Bible is the Word of God."  Thus, to say you don't believe the Bible is 100% factual in all matters of science and history leads some Christians to erroneously believe that you are against God, are not saved, etc.  I like a different expression that I'll alter slightly:  "It's not what you think you know; it's WHO you claim to know that matters."

You wrote,
As I wrote here and on another thread, I did believe in the complete factuality of the Bible.  I did not want to change my views when I noticed discrepancies, but was forced to after years of in-depth study.  I also wrote at length on another thread about the history behind the 19th Century Princeton scholars and their attempt to protect the Bible through creating this notion of Biblical inerrancy.  I remember feeling very offended when people would say the Bible has contradictions because how could I hold such black-and-white views if I actually had to use my own mind when I read the Bible?  I fought to protect the Bible because I was protecting my cherished belief that I could just read any passage of the Bible and have unfettered access to the truth.  Even now, after once again reflecting on my beliefs, it would be nice to believe in a kind of magic book that was word-for-literal-word the Word of God.  But I don't believe that is true based on what I have come to see.

Even if the Bible was the word-for-word Word of God, humans still have to interpret the Bible, knowing that there are thousands of different Christian bodies that hold different views on theology and what it means to live a good life before God.  This should make us humble and we should realize that, when faced with so many different views and interpretations, we could be wrong.  Thus, it is mentally and spiritually dangerous when one directly associates what they personally believe with THE TRUTH and look down on others.  This is a kind of cultist thinking that the Assembly was famous for.

One poster observed, “Folk will usually find what they are really seeking.”  I never sought to find errors in the Bible, but they kept popping up even when I tried to overlook them.  So I say through personal experience:  *** People may not find the truth if they are not willing to seek because they have wrongly associate their beliefs with THE TRUTH. ***

It has been nice talking with you.  May God bless you all.  Like so many others, I am henceforth withdrawing from discussion on this board.  Goodbye.   :)

Any attempt by anyone, and I do not care what they call themselves, to undermine the accuracy and historicity of the Genesis record, is an attack and an attempt to undermine the Christian faith.
In case I was not clear let me repeat it:
It is an attack and an attempt to undermine Christian faith.
Why such a strong thesis?
The book of Genesis, and in particular the first three chapters is the only source of information available to us, that tell us the following:
How we got here.
Why we are here.
What ails us.
And Why.
Genesis is foundational. All subsequent claims of the Scripture, and particularly those claims that relate to soteriology (salvation), have integrity and find relevance only if the record presented in Genesis is a historical one.
If Adam did not exist, then the New Testament claim that he was our Federal head and plunged the entire race into sin is sheer nonsense.
If all did not die in Adam, then certainly none will be made alive in Christ..

Some of you reading the foregoing exchanges may be thinking that this is nothing more than silly intellectual sparring over matters of little or no real consequence.
That assumption would be gravely in error.
I think we are living in dangerous times because of the systematic and subversive attack on the very foundations of what  we as believers hold true, namely that there is a God, and not only that but that He has also spoken into history.
Everything that the New Testament tells us about redemption, is told to us in the context of  the unquestionable historicity of the events related to us in the first three chapters of Genesis. If those chapters are faulty, the message of salvation is meaningless.
I am therefore at a loss to comprehend how anyone attacking the historicity of the book of Genesis, can at the same time mouth the most pious sounding statements about faith and evangelism. On the one hand the Biblically given basis of the need for redemption is impugned, and on the other, calims are made that those who affirm such a basis obstruct the gospel message!
We are living in dangerous times…
Verne

My doubt about Will had nothing to do with his views on inerrancy.
The above quote quintessentially ilustrates what the problem is in my mind.
No matter how you slice it, this is a very cavalier statement that makes Christ a liar or an ignoramus.
I have difficulty seeing how anyone who knows the Son of God could have such an opinion of Him.
Will if you tell me plainly that you know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour and that you believe that He died for your sins I will immediately offer an apology for any dobut I expressed about your spiritual condition.
Verne

Verne,

You wrote:
Verne,

What you have said seems so obvious that one wonders how they can get it so wrong.  However, they do so. They do it by viewing the Bible as a vehicle of religious truth, rather than an accurate historical account.  Mark has correctly identified Will's position as Neo-Evangelical.  Neo-Evangelicals think in terms of a virtually unknowable God who speaks to man through the limited means available to us.  In other words, the Bible "contains" or "carries" the word of God rather than being in itself the word of God.

Viewed this way, purported scientific and historical errors are something like dents on your car.  It is not in perfect condition but it still transports its passengers to the desired destination.

The problem with this whole project is that the whole thing is based upon the decision to believe something without evidence or rational argument.  Notice that in Will's posts he simply states his beliefs as if they were self-evident.  He does not argue for them, he merely repeats them over and over.  This is the result of the Neo-Evangelical focus on subjectivity.  The Bible is meaningful as we experience the self-revelation of God through the text.  So truth is known subjectively not objectively.  This, I believe, is why Will avoided dealing directly with any of the arguments I presented.

Francis Schaeffer explained this many years ago in a small but powerful book entitled, "Escape From Reason".  In it he describes the progress of the idea that their are two realms of truth.  The first is what he calls "lower story truth", the realm we know through objective experience, including all historical and scientific knowledge.  The other realm is what he called the "upper story", where truth is communicated through subjective or mystical experiences, but are not objectively verifiable.  Liberal and Neo-Orthodox theology are grounded in "upper story" experiences.

To me, Will is illustrates the old saying that "a little knowledge is dangerous".  He has read the works of critical scholars, but seems completely unfamiliar with Evangelical scholarship.  So, the critics have convinced him.  Perhaps he wished to be convinced?

He came here after a long absence to renew an old argument.  He restated his animosity toward you along with his statements of faith...voluminously.  (He takes pages to say what a more skillful writer could express in a few paragraphs.) He has answered all questions and objections with more statements of faith.  Now he has declared victory and left.

Sad.   :(

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

It has been my experience, and I want to be clear in saying that I do not know if this is true in Will's case, that people who cite science and history as reasons for circumscribing Biblical authority are not really that interested in either science or history.
The real issue is authority.
Whether consciously or not, many people who take issue with some teaching in God's Word, find the issue of Biblical realiabilty on matters of science and history to be a favorable departure point for what inevitably becomes a foray into other areas where the Bible can presumably be shown to be in error - the camel's nose under the tent so to speak.
Adducing science and history certainly sounds scholarly and objective and tends to have the effect of putting the gullible on the defensive since in these arenas one is presumably dealing with facts and not fantasy- right?
Have you noticed that when you start to get real specific about the science and/or the history, then you become the problem ( tone, harshness etc.) not the merit or defensibility of the paricular claims being made.
Will is right about one thing.
Let every man be convinced in his on mind before God.
He is not swayed by rhetorical erudition.
People who think they can effectively hold the faith in anything but a clear conscience, ultimately  wake up to the tragic realization that they have departed from it...anyone reading this still possessed of the capacity for being brutally honest with self, knows exactly what I am saying...
Verne

 I hope that Will might read my response to the above.

  Will,
  I appreciate the spirit in which you have responded to me above.  I am not offended, nor do I think that many here would be.  I didn't mean to suggest that I somehow knew your motives for posting here or was trying to attack you personally.

   You should feel free to share your views, but in so doing in a public forum you may get an argument or two in answer.  When the view you share is not a popular one then it can get very difficult to answer everyone the way you would like to, and this is why I was reluctant to enter the fray until I did.

 1.) Open minds:  This is actually a very relevant discussion to have for former Assembly members.  This phrase means different things to different former members.  So, we need to ask the questions:  Open to what?  Open to doubts re. the authority of the bible in my life?  All other questions re. authority are just theoretical and won't have much bearing in our lives.

  This question re. authority is also a very difficult one for many former members.  Many are tired of always feeling guilty all the time, and by rejecting the moral authority of the bible they seek relief from all the "have-to's"!  They may recognize they were terrible hypocrites while in the group and by just rejecting any kind of moral authority in their lives they can enjoy the freedom of their new Modern view of the bible, or just embrace the religion of Atheism. ( I'm not saying that you Will share this condition.)

  In this I agree with Verne's view that if we are opening our minds to doubt re. the fact that the bible reveals the true nature of God's holiness and our accountability to Him re. our own moral disposition we are in danger of falling into darkness.

  Some former members have been unable to separate their bad experience with false religious authority from the true one found in the bible and consequently have rejected the whole thing. :'( 

The question of the "open mind" should be pointed toward how do we help others make the above transition, not just the ability to doubt and question the bible's reliability.  I would hope that you, Will, might return with some answers that might build the faith of those so damaged.  It's easy to place doubt but much more difficult to build faith.

  There is not enough space here to answer the very untrue notion that it has only been recently in the history of church that the bible has been accepted as inerrant.  The use of this word may be recent, but the concept has been part of orthodoxy clear back to the early church.

  I wish you the best Will and hope that you will consider my thoughts above as you continue your studies.

                                                                            God Bless,  Mark C. 

MarK I realise that you are trying to be gracious to Will but the problem with the view that he is sharing is not simply that it is not popular - it is indefensible.
I responded with great specificity to a numer of points he raised and I think I did so without attacking him personally, but he seemed very reluctant to engage when it comes to specifics.
This is intellectual dishonesty in my view.
I remembered our earler conversation when his oft-repeated premise was that the men who wrote the Scriptures were limited by the knowledge of the day.
I went to great pains to point out how this premise collapses entirely when you consider the Bible's prescription for example in matters of hygeine - directions entirely at odds with the medical practices of the day. We are not even considering prophecy!
This to me is one of more powerful evidences of the Bible's divine orgin as some of the guidelines are still in use today! It was in the middle of my attempt to deal with this particular premise that Will disappeared with never a response to the points I was raising.
His quote that you do not need to believe the Bible to believe in God in quite remarkable, and has me wondering:

 If it is not the God of the Bible, then exactly which God is he talking about?

Now I know that there are many people who have been saved without benefit of the written Scriptures, but for those of us who have received the faith once delivered this is to me truly shocking.

 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.  Luke 24:27

Was this the Lord's attitude toward the Scriptures?
That they were dispensible in matters of salvation?

I am badly in need of some help here folks.

How in God's Holy Name could anyone calling themselves a Christian have such a low view of the Scriptures?
Verne

Hi Verne!

  I was trying to be gracious to Will, because I think that he means well and truly believes that his position is an accurate one. 

  Also, I have read some of the scholars that represent his views and I would consider most of these within the family of God (of course, I can't know for sure).  In other words, these scholars are not at all in the same camp with the liberal "theologian" who rejects biblical authority altogether.  Will needs to think through his premise that the bible is not the Word of God, and that only Jesus is the Word of God (and that the bible can actually impede the communication of the Gospel).  These Neo scholars would never say such a thing, because, of course, it is a preposterous position to take.

  In this regard, I think Will's presentation of "Neo" thought differs from the usual views these scholars present, but I think this is not so much "dishonesty" on his part as much as fuzziness in his understanding of the concepts involved.  This is why I encouraged him to "continue his studies" and to try and think through his position.  If he really is sincere and humble (as I believe him to be) then he will take the time necessary to obtain clarity.

  I can have a lot of patience for those with fuzzy thinking because I have a great deal of difficulty with my own.  Much of what passes for thought in my brain is a big jumble of concepts that are heavily biased defenses of my own emotional condition.  As I mentioned to Will, former members of the Assembly bring their own emotional "set-up's," and though I think it not good for us to try and psycho-analyze the motives of why Will has the position he does, it is a good idea for each poster to try and honestly ask themselves whether or not their thinking is defensive in nature.

  I have talked with some former members who now claim to be atheist, agnostic, or liberal in their theology.  These are all reactions, and these reactions are defensive emotional responses.  Never in my talking with these has it ever been a well reasoned discussion based on clear thinking.  I am not saying this because I believe that I am the only one rational in the conversation, but because of the explosive, defensive, and emotional reactions I receive while engaged with them.

  Like I said, I can understand this, because much of what I believe is heavily influenced by my own psychological environment.  The one major difference between an honest seeker of the truth and a dishonest one is that they are willing to admit their own personal predjudices that color their thought processes.   If there is an inability to accept entreaty (which affects more than just atheists, etc. but includes former members who might maintain a belief in the bible's inerrancy) it is the clearest sign that an individual is in a spiritually darkened state (James:3:17).

 The Pharisees were strict guardians of the scriptures and studiously copied these OT manuscripts believing them to be word for word from God.  However, their interpretations became twisted due to the sinful biases that controlled their souls.  Reactions to the rampant Elmer Gantryism's of the past/present has created a strong bias against "American Christian Fundamentalism" among many.

   When I see the hateful and disdainful (I most certainly do not include Will in this kind of response) reactions against orthodox believers in the bible, from so called intellectuals and scholars, I understand that these have little to do with well reasoned thought, and everything to do with an emotional rejection of a Pharisetical religious expression--- their rejection of bible truth is a reaction to a distorted caricature from those claiming to sole possession of the way of truth.

  I think that I can understand why Will has such a desire to escape any identification with the kind of Phariseeism he was involved with in the Assembly, and has sought an intellectual justification to allow him to keep what he views as truly from God and reject what was so full of hypocrisy, manipulation, dishonesty, etc.

  Some of us have been able to understand that the conservative view of the bible by the Assembly was not the problem, but the Pharisee like means of dishonest interpretation and application of the same by them/us.  I don't think we should be too hard on those trying to work through these problems.  It behooves us to use a great deal of patience and understanding in trying to present an opportunity for these to truly open their minds.  All the while knowing, that we have a load full of baggage ourselves and are not beyond falling prey to our own self centered predjudices, (Gal.6:1-- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.  But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.)

                                                                         God Bless,  Mark C.   
   

 

I do understand what you are saying Mark.
I guess I still have a lot to learn in the area of being gracious.
The depth of my feeling on this has to do with the fact that the instrument that the Spirit of God uses to transform us to the image of Christ is the Word of God. This is fundamental.
I guess I am just dismayed over how someone sound in the faith could fail to see and grasp this essential principle.
To diminish and dismiss the critical role it plays in working out our salvation is to do, in my view, tremendous injury to the message of the gospel.
I spent some time thinking about this and one incident that came to mind was the temptation of Christ in the wilderness.
While it is certainly true that Christ is the Living Word, the Lord's response to the tempter was not a haughty:

Don't you know who I am?

His response was:

It is written...!

God Bless,
Verne

it takes about five minutes on google to uncover loads of material on both sides of this age-old debate. the first result i found:

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

so there do appear to be some small, clear factual inconsistencies in the bible. i mean, 22 does not equal 42, and 700 does not equal 7000. yet 63% of americans believe the bible is literally true:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm

large piles of big books have been written covering both sides of this debate, and its not going to be resolved on this bb. the best that can be hoped for on a bb is that we all walk away a little better informed by the exchange of opinions, and as will said "agree to disagree". this is especially important when it comes to doctrinal issues, which throughout history have brought out many of the worst sides of human nature. when someone comes on here who does not agree with a particular point of doctrine, it is important to err on the side of graciousness. we have already been hammered on over doctrinal issues more than enough for one lifetime.

the ongoing purpose of this board is not to set everyone's doctrine straight. it is to preserve a record of what happened to the assemblies and why, and to give people a reasonably safe place to talk about it, reconnect etc.

brian

Hi Brian!

  I was glad to see your input in this discussion re. "History and Science in the Bible."  It's good to know what you, the Moderator of the BB believes re.  "The Purpose of this BB".  As I understand your last post, this BB is not to have an official kind of stance that is intolerant of various views of the Bible/etc., but allows for the expression of different opinions.

  I also believe that it is better to have as much tolerance as possible for those who wish to engage in sincere discussion, and not engage in personal attack.  Will most certainly made his contribution in a very polite and sincere manner, and I was sorry to see him leave the BB.  In the heat of debate it is easy to shift the argument from the subject to the motives of the one taking a position by characterizing that individual as being evil, etc.

  However, "the purpose of the BB", that you envision may not be the purpose that I, or another individual who posts here might have.  Tolerance, under some folks understanding of the word, can take on a kind of political correctness that sees having a strong belief in a certain biblical view as being "intolerant."  Because I have a "doctrinal" view, and strongly argue for that view, it does not necessarily follow that I am an intolerant individual.  Also, if I point out someone's argument has flaws, this does not mean I lack graciousness.

  Some may post, as an example, that "GG is a great teacher from God who is the victim of vicious lies and that all that disagree with his heavenly vision will roast in hell."  I would strongly disagree with such a poster, and let them know that I believe that GG's teaching is very wrong and is destructive to the human soul!  Would I be lacking in grace if did so?  I think most, even those that don't care about doctrinal issues, would think my response appropriate--- because it argues directly against the poster's premise, and that premise is particularly offensive to many here (we don't need a bible to know that GG is evil).

  I do believe that this hypothetical poster is seriously deceived, and has a potentially damaging message that must be opposed.  Now, there may be those who think that all opinions are equally truthful, good, or as valid as the next guy's--- and this is their definition of tolerance.  My view of tolerance:  I want to allow all sincere opinion but innaccurate, reprehensible, and deceptive statements need to be countered by good passionate debate.

  There are issues, like the one above, that I will go to battle over, and others that (as my disagreement with Will) I do not see as being that crucial.  Others may see Will's views as potentially very harmful and needing to be strongly opposed.  It would be a bland world indeed if we all just tolerated everyone's view of life and never had strong passionate beliefs one way or another.  The trick on a BB is to make that strongly felt argument without getting involved in personally attacking the individual we disagree with.

  My purpose on this BB is to try help former members of the Assembly recover (or in some cases find for the first time) a strong healthy faith in Christ.  To me, there can be no better use of my time.  Someone else's purpose may be an altogether different one, and I can tolerate this, but being tolerant is not the highest goal for myself---- sometimes tolerance can sit quietly and watch terrible evil without taking action. Also, dogma (doctrine) can provide the environment for the nurture of that evil (ie, Nazism, etc.).  There is bad thought that leads to evil and good thought that can lead to good morality.

  There was a time when I was a good tolerant member of the Assembly, and I am ashamed to say, that I sat back and allowed evil acting and teaching to go on without a protest! :'(  My motto: Never Again!!

                                                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.   

There is a sense in which the Bible is a literary work.
It is also far more than that.
I think the kind of people that get into the most trouble with the Bible are those who:
1. Maintain that the Bible cannot be taken literally.
2. Those who insist that is can only be taken literally.

I am curious as to how you would define a "factual inconsistency".
Consider this example:
When you read the book of Matthew and the number of generations from Abraham to David are listed, any six-year old would immediately tell you that the number listed cannot possibly be accurate. Even a cursory exmination of the intervening genealogies will instantly expose this "factual inconsistency."
One can conclude that the author of Matthew cannot count, or one can conclude that for reasons not immediately obvious, some geneaological lines have been omitted.
In my humble opinion, people who have learned to consider the second possibility in such instances and ask the question: "Why?", have learned something about the Bible that no amount of scholarly education or argumentation could ever inculcate.


Frankly I really enjoyed the exchanges with Will.
I know I can get a bit enthusiastic in my responses sometimes but one should be able to debate these kinds of topics witihout things getting personal.
The bottom line in my view is that if you are going to start a thread like the one he did, you have to be prepared to really engage the topic with intellectual integrity and not merely regurgitate the arguments of others.
There are some incredibly intriguing "factual inconsistencies" in the Bible that I was hoping we would eventually get to and they are ones you uncover by really reading the Bible, not what others say about it.
I believe there are answers to these questions, even though I may not presently have them...    :) 

Verne

p.s I took a quick look at the contradictions site and was smiling at the verses presented as evidencing inconsistencies or factual error and I think they missed the best stuff!  :)
But seriously, one example adduced the case in Matthew 4 of the devil taking Christ up into an "exceeding high mountain" and showing  him all the kingdoms of the world envisions a flat earth.
True only if one assumes the vista and view mentioned was a physical one...
The parallel passage in Luke 4 tell us that the devil did this  in a moment of time...nuff said...

OK, Bible Students, did Paul go to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion or not?

---

Galatians 1:

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me.


vs.

Acts 9:

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

    Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.

 23After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

 26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus

And another:
Did Paul's companions hear the voice on the Damascus road or not?

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.  Acts 9:7

and

 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.   Acts 22:7


Sure looks like a "factual inconsistency", does it not?   :)

Verne