Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I realize that what the nearly 300 Theologians drafted into a statement concerning Biblical inerrancy won't change the views of the skeptics, but there it is anyway.
From this point on, any thing else I say on this thread will be to simply point to the 'Got Questions' site which is posted above, and to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. There is no point in wasting any further time with the skeptics on this thread.
Your constant repeating statements and appeal to authority (Of which I can find plenty of authorities that disagree - whoopi-do) just does not cut it nor does it address the obvious errors and contradictions which have been pointed out numerous times to you on many a thread.
By the way how many posts are you going to say your are not going to waste anymore time on the skeptics - yet constantly do?
This part of the Chicago Statement on error in scripture is itself in error as has been shown by the contradictions scripture contains.
Article XII
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
"In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive."
The obvious contradictions I've already presented, Jesus being born before 4 BC (Matthew) or during the 6 AD census of Quirinius (Luke) and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on one animal (Mark, Luke, and John) or two animals (Matthew) are clear contradictions inconsistent with claims that scripture is inerrant.
Ancient, I am of the opinion (without factual knowledge) that from your writing you are not a man of faith, but a man of logic and reason. I, too, have logic and reason and have experienced the writings of Aristotle and others from what I call "mathematical" reasoning. Some of that reasoning works on pointing out mistakes in the Scripture.
But where Clear and Nate, and I, would have a different approach to understanding scripture IN SPITE of "logical" failings, is that we have all had a spiritual experience which is beyond classical logic. We still see the Spirit of God in those errant scriptures as we see the Spirit of God at work in fallible men over the course of history. I'm sure you may not agree, but it's like a woman giving birth to a child, as much as we men would like to THINK we understand it, we do not. And so we frequently lessen the experience to below what women would think of it.
The same is true of men who have been in war. I'm a Viet Nam vet. When I hear people speaking about war but having not been in one, I recognize that it is not the same as KNOWING about war.
So it is with the Spirit of God among those who claim Christianity. We speak to one another based on experiences we share, and we even verbally chasten those whom we feel have taken license with the scripture, but not nearly as much on the grounds of logic which define your stand. While I don't minimize any of the specific statements you have made about the "logic" of existing scripture, your arguments aren't so meaningful to me because I have the impression (only) that you are writing as one who hasn't experienced the "wars" of the spirit internally. Because for those of us who have been in those wars and survived, there is a level of knowing that we can never quite express orally or in writing to someone who has not been there, or who failed to make it out alive.
Peace.
P.S. And I will add, that for Mike to try to do battle on logical ground rather than spiritual is a losing proposition. Because faith in Christ as our Lord and Savior is FAITH. If it were logic, it would not be faith.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-21-2013 at 06:38 PM..
Reason: added postscript
Of course I realize that what the nearly 300 Theologians drafted into a statement concerning Biblical inerrancy won't change the views of the skeptics, but there it is anyway.
P.S. And I will add, that for Mike to try to do battle on logical ground rather than spiritual is a losing proposition. Because faith in Christ as our Lord and Savior is FAITH. If it were logic, it would not be faith.
If only all theists realized this and lived their lives in this manner, leaving "faith" out of the public square, including laws and regulations.
The Bible is indeed errant and full of contradictions, which is to be expected through the many hearsay accounts and translations. The question is, which parts are true and which are not.
[quote=Wardendresden;31070130]Ancient, I am of the opinion (without factual knowledge) that from your writing you are not a man of faith, but a man of logic and reason. I, too, have logic and reason and have experienced the writings of Aristotle and others from what I call "mathematical" reasoning. Some of that reasoning works on pointing out mistakes in the Scripture.
But where Clear and Nate, and I, would have a different approach to understanding scripture IN SPITE of "logical" failings, is that we have all had a spiritual experience which is beyond classical logic.
RESPONSE:
Could we characterize this "spiritual experience" as a hallucination?
How do you rule a hallucination out?
"A hallucination may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.
It is not widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance."
Ancient, I am of the opinion (without factual knowledge) that from your writing you are not a man of faith, but a man of logic and reason. I, too, have logic and reason and have experienced the writings of Aristotle and others from what I call "mathematical" reasoning. Some of that reasoning works on pointing out mistakes in the Scripture.
But where Clear and Nate, and I, would have a different approach to understanding scripture IN SPITE of "logical" failings, is that we have all had a spiritual experience which is beyond classical logic.
RESPONSE:
Could we characterize this "spiritual experience" as a hallucination?
How do you rule a hallucination out?
"A hallucination may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.
It is not widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance."
Now is the time to use your logic. So many people in some many lands have this same "hallucinatory" spiritual experience your argument becomes vain outside of a statement that "most" people are hallucinatory.
And the biggest difficulty for those with a mindset toward logic, is to believe anything beyond their own "verifiable" world even exists. And since verifiable experience has changed over time and altered views about what is real, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for those of faith to allow those such changes that have been discovered in their own writings to alter their external view of writings without impacting the inner experience.
And, of course, the person of logic, without faith, always suffers from his OWN hallucinatory experience that his OWN thoughts are indeed the only way to view life. In the secular life, as in the spiritual life, when new discoveries which differ from one's own experience appear, they are resisted in order to hold on to what is more comfortable. You have obviously no spiritual experience and some strange need to disparage those whom you consider hallucinatory, because no experience really exists that differs from your own. Exactly what the inerrantists do by defending what they know instead of seeking further truth.
I do not criticize the stand on faith that you take. In many ways it is far more honest than that of many who name Christ as Lord, but wish to proclaim His name without following the example of His life.
But I did want to share with you why most real Christians on this thread are simply not goaded by the remarkable "mistakes" within the scripture--which number almost 400,000 mistakes and/or differences in the NT alone. The only ones you goad are those with your own mindset, who believe that there is some sort of logic to a book that was written about faith and its growth through history. Whether they are Christians or not, I do not know. But it does appear to me that it is necessary for them to reconcile logic with faith---an impossible task in my opinion--and apparently in yours as well. So we do find SOMETHING we can agree upon!
But for those of us with genuine "hallucinatory" experiences, their argument is no more valid than your own.
Now is the time to use your logic. So many people in some many lands have this same "hallucinatory" spiritual experience your argument becomes vain outside of a statement that "most" people are hallucinatory.
And the biggest difficulty for those with a mindset toward logic, is to believe anything beyond their own "verifiable" world even exists. And since verifiable experience has changed over time and altered views about what is real, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for those of faith to allow those such changes that have been discovered in their own writings to alter their external view of writings without impacting the inner experience.
And, of course, the person of logic, without faith, always suffers from his OWN hallucinatory experience that his OWN thoughts are indeed the only way to view life. In the secular life, as in the spiritual life, when new discoveries which differ from one's own experience appear, they are resisted in order to hold on to what is more comfortable. You have obviously no spiritual experience and some strange need to disparage those whom you consider hallucinatory, because no experience really exists that differs from your own. Exactly what the inerrantists do by defending what they know instead of seeking further truth.
I do not criticize the stand on faith that you take. In many ways it is far more honest than that of many who name Christ as Lord, but wish to proclaim His name without following the example of His life.
But I did want to share with you why most real Christians on this thread are simply not goaded by the remarkable "mistakes" within the scripture--which number almost 400,000 mistakes and/or differences in the NT alone. The only ones you goad are those with your own mindset, who believe that there is some sort of logic to a book that was written about faith and its growth through history. Whether they are Christians or not, I do not know. But it does appear to me that it is necessary for them to reconcile logic with faith---an impossible task in my opinion--and apparently in yours as well. So we do find SOMETHING we can agree upon!
But for those of us with genuine "hallucinatory" experiences, their argument is no more valid than your own.
Peace
RESPONSE:
Really? how many people have claimed a personal spiritual expereince proving that God exists?
But blind faith fills a psychological need for many people so they insist it is reasonable.
>>The only ones you goad are those with your own mindset, who believe that there is some sort of logic to a book that was written about faith and its growth through history.<<
Yep. All the worlds major religions have their "Sacred Book." But they are all quite different.
You get to pick the one you like. Have you tried the Book of Mormon or the Koran yet? You might like either better than the bible and they are just as valid.
Really? how many people have claimed a personal spiritual expereince proving that God exists?
But blind faith fills a psychological need for many people so they insist it is reasonable.
>>The only ones you goad are those with your own mindset, who believe that there is some sort of logic to a book that was written about faith and its growth through history.<<
Yep. All the worlds major religions have their "Sacred Book." But they are all quite different.
You get to pick the one you like. Have you tried the Book of Mormon or the Koran yet? You might like either better than the bible and they are just as valid.
Good luck with logic as the answer for the void in the meaning of life. I found something more worthwhile.
But where Clear and Nate, and I, would have a different approach to understanding scripture IN SPITE of "logical" failings, is that we have all had a spiritual experience which is beyond classical logic. – Wardendresden in post # 402
Ancient Warrior responded in post # 405 “ Could we characterize this "spiritual experience" as a hallucination? How do you rule a hallucination out?”
Hi Ancient Warrior and Wardendresden
I only have a few minutes to type a response, but, I must say that I think that Ancient Warriors question is quite legitimate since it is difficult to tell authentic revelation from the counterfeit (perhaps even for the person having the experience). Is there objective evidence within revelations themselves that they are not simply repeated halucinations?
I do not think we need give up reason and logic in order to analyze authentic revelation, and in fact reason and logic plays a role in confirming certain authentic revelations. For example
1) THE EXISTENCE OF A MECHANISM OF GUIDANCE FOR ALL MANKIND IS REASONABLE AND LOGICAL
It is quite reasonable and logical that if there is a God who will ultimately judge mankind based on obedience to moral knowledge, then There must be a principle given to all men whereby they are able to have an inkling of moral knowledge which, if valued and used properly, can be enlarged. Like the new Testament "parable of the talents", all must be given some initial basic principle that points to a true "moral north", and allowed to choose to use and enlarge on this guidance they are given, (or they are allowed to neglect and diminish the effect of this guiding principle if they desire.)
All morally-competent beings must be given an initial and basic method of moral direction and as well as a path to learning finer points of more complicated morals if they are to be ultimately rewarded or punished based on moral choices they make. Else, if men are given NO basic influence that points the way to moral good and evil, then they cannot be justly rewarded nor punished for moral choices.
2) OFTEN, REVELATIONS CONTAIN OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT MERELY HALUCINATIONS
Perhaps I can offer a couple of example revelations of individual guidance by the spirit and we can analyze them reasonably and logical for external and objective evidence that might lead us to conclude that they are not merely halucinations. "The first example applies to brothers, one living in Germany and one living in Texas, who have who formed detailed plans and commitments through regular written letters to attend an americal college together. More than a year of almost weekly letters have allowed them to plan in detail their courses of study and common living arrangement, etc. At one point, each receives a separate revelation on the same day regarding a drastic change to their plan. In their separate revelations, each are told NOT to do as they planned, but are each told to take different paths than they planned for so many months.
Both brothers have the same revelations, concerning the same subject, on the same day, at the same time as it were. They each write a letter to one another on the same day describing their individual experience as the reason to change these plans. The letters cross each other when mailed.
One brother starts his letter with the sentence:
"Dear Larry, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels he was told to do.
The other brother writes:
"Dear Gary, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels HE was told to do.
Each Brother reads the "identical" introductory sentence when they receive the letter. Both brothers complete re-oriented their lives away from a shared goal they’d spent months planning toward, based on the strength of their separate and distinct revelations.
If only one brother had experienced the “revelation” and had asked my opinion about HIS "revelation", then I might have been tempted to labeling the experience as a possible, perhaps even a probable delusion. However, once I understand the FULL circumstances, then I have a greater difficulty doing this. Once I know the FULL circumstances, the diagnosis of delusion is less probable. It's also difficult to label this as two separate delusions, on two separate continents, yet having a delusion at the same time, on the same subject and against a shared goal. Especially since both individuals seem mentally normal and have never been prone to delusions.
Also, there are objective elements existing that I might consider as evidence that the
experience actually happened as the brothers claimed. For example, there may be diary entries in separate diaries, made on separate continents. The letters might have date stamps to refer to (one letter to the U.S. and one letter in europe), etc.) It's this sort objective data that I am referring to that revelation may carry within it, as evidence that the phenomenon is not generated within the person - as a delusion, or hallucination is.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We agree but disagree
