DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Foxaèr]

@CDF47

I don't know if it's been brought up, but is this why you started the thread?

[CDF47]

So, CDF, I know you're not a fundamentalist (I notice and appreciate this fact). But I'm curious to hear your take on fundamentalism. Do you think it's misguided? And, if so, doesn't that mean that "God's Word" is being misused? Or do you think that fundamentalists use the Bible properly but have erred in their interpretation concerning the origins of life and the universe?

What's your stance on Biblical inerrancy?

Great questions!

I think they are a bit misguided as I think all of us believers are misguided to various extents.  I believe only God knows all the truth and we can try to do our best to figure things out on our own and with the help of others.  

Yes, I think they erred in their interpretation concerning origins and the universe.  

I think the Bible is inerrant.  I think a good commentary can explain problem texts, like the Matthew Henry commentary and others.

---

@CDF47

I don't know if it's been brought up, but is this why you started the thread?

No, I started this thread to bring what I honestly and truly believe in my soul to be the truth to non-believers.

[vulcanlogician]

I think the Bible is inerrant.  I think a good commentary can explain problem texts, like the Matthew Henry commentary and others.

Really though? I mean, Paul seems pretty opinionated in some of his letters. Do you take his opinions as absolute truth? Maybe (sometimes) he was just trying to communicate things to his followers in Corinth at times and would be aghast upon discovering that future generations would take his words as unblemished truth.

And what about Ecclesiastes? I actually think it's a pretty meaningful and poetic book. But I think the right way to read it is to see that it is written by someone who is utterly burned out and exhausted by life. Much of the book (as I see it) is meant to convey that in order to set the reader up for the resolution. To take every sentence in that book as being absolutely true could obscure the whole. You might even miss its core message if you approach it that way.

[CDF47]

I think the Bible is inerrant.  I think a good commentary can explain problem texts, like the Matthew Henry commentary and others.

Really though? I mean, Paul seems pretty opinionated in some of his letters. Do you take his opinions as absolute truth? Maybe (sometimes) he was just trying to communicate things to his followers in Corinth at times and would be aghast upon discovering that future generations would take his words as unblemished truth.

And what about Ecclesiastes? I actually think it's a pretty meaningful and poetic book. But I think the right way to read it is to see that it is written by someone who is utterly burned out and exhausted by life. Much of the book (as I see it) is meant to convey that in order to set the reader up for the resolution. To take every sentence in that book as being absolutely true could obscure the whole. You might even miss its core message if you approach it that way.

Agreed.  Yes, some are poems and are not to be taken literally, I agree.  Some of it also takes you into the mind of the psalmist or writer.

[Foxaèr]

I figure if such an important historical book had parts of it that were to not be taken literally then the integrity of the entire thing is compromised.

[CDF47]

I figure if such an important historical book had parts of it that were to not be taken literally then the integrity of the entire thing is compromised.

No, that is not how the Book is written or structured.

[Foxaèr]

Then it is an unworthy book.

[vulcanlogician]

Agreed.  Yes, some are poems and are not to be taken literally, I agree.  Some of it also takes you into the mind of the psalmist or writer.

But then "inerrancy" becomes a sort of nebulous term concerning much of the Bible, doesn't it?

Are we to fashion our own laws to match those given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Are those laws "inerrant"? Aren't we past some of that?

Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.

Is this inerrant? It seems insane to take this verse seriously. To me, it reflects the ignorance of an ancient tribal culture. Can you understand why some of us read things such as this and are given pause?

[CDF47]

Then it is an unworthy book.

Disagree.

---

Agreed.  Yes, some are poems and are not to be taken literally, I agree.  Some of it also takes you into the mind of the psalmist or writer.

But then "inerrancy" becomes a sort of nebulous term concerning much of the Bible, doesn't it?

Are we to fashion our own laws to match those given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Are those laws "inerrant"? Aren't we past some of that?

Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.

Is this inerrant? It seems insane to take this verse seriously. To me, it reflects the ignorance of an ancient tribal culture. Can you understand why some of us read things such as this and are given pause?

Some of the Bible is poetic and is not to be taken literally.  I believe there is some inspiration in those texts as well.  We do get a look into the writer's thoughts though like in Psalms and throughout the Bible.  

The laws were to set God's people apart and to command how to lead a clean and righteous life.  The laws are no longer in affect since the way to salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.  This is the new agreement/covenant.

[Foxaèr]

Disagree.