(April 27, 2018 at 11:09 am)possibletarian Wrote:
Now this is the problem we have Theists tend to point to the bits of the bible that have been proven true like the existence of Belshazzar to then claim that the whole bible can be trusted, even though there are clear problems, and when faced with these problems have to write whole reams of excuses lots of 'maybe's' or 'perhaps' (as in the post above) . This is fine when speculating archaeological meanings of finds.
This is not however what theists claim, they claim the scriptures to be divinely inspired by a god who knows all, see's all, and has protected that text. To prove that's not the case everything would have to be true and accurate.
You need the whole of scripture to be true to prove your case. I am interested in how you would define a 'reasonable explanation' when dealing with the seeming? disparity between scripture and what we discover, when is it not a reasonable explanation.. to you at least ?
I hope you don't mind, I skipped to the end of your post, because I think that you are saying something important to the discussion here. I think that you are confusing the historicity or corroborating evidence with the doctrine of inerrancy or at least that I am talking about historicity while you are talking about inerrancy.
It does appear here, that you agree, that the texts do not need to be inerrant, in order to be considered historically reliable. It also appear that you issue is more about inerrancy than the historical aspect. I think that you may have a different sense of what it means for the scriptures to be inerrant though.
For myself; inerrancy doesn't mean that we treat the text with a hyper literalism that is not natural, or inflict upon it a precision that is not used in everyday language. I don't see where there is a special protection that prohibits someone from misinterpreting a text, or that would prevent them from giving that poor interpretation to others. I don't believe that every word is picked special, or that we need to find deeper meaning and over analyze every jot and tilde. I just simply believe that the Bible is true in what it reports, in the manner that it is reporting.
And even then, Christianity does not hinge on inerrancy; and a lack of inerrancy will not make the faith crumble (or should not anyway)
However, I think that a number of people over-complicate the subject.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther