Inerrancy of the Bible and other Religious Texts

[Fade]

We can't verify Math, Meterology, or History???

I can't take my strawman anywhere right now, he's laughing pretty hard.

Mmm, i think sarcasm and irony might be a little beyond your grasp.

Here, I'll make it simple. Anything that makes the claim of being historical, scientific, meterological or what have you, CAN be verified by external sources. It has to be or it can't make the claim. The Bible is only verifiable by the Bible...it's that circular logic thing (I'm sure we've gone over this before).

 

[Fade]

What's "Revelations"? Did you mean "Revelation"?

Looks like you could use an editor yourself.

okay mr pedantic

 

[michel]

Mmm, i think sarcasm and irony might be a little beyond your grasp.

Here, I'll make it simple. Anything that makes the claim of being historical, scientific, meterological or what have you, CAN be verified by external sources. It has to be or it can't make the claim. The Bible is only verifiable by the Bible...it's that circular logic thing (I'm sure we've gone over this before).

If you want to mention something we've gone over before, then use the terminology "I" used (unless you just like to post and hear yourself talk).

I said it was a CLOSED SYSTEM ... not Circular Logic.

 

[Sunstone]

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel this thread has degenerated into nitpicking?

 

[Green Gaia]

I said it was a CLOSED SYSTEM ... not Circular Logic.

What's the difference?

 

[Green Gaia]

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel this thread has degenerated into nitpicking?

Mmmm... yes. Perhaps we need to restate the original question and start over?

 

[Fade]

If you want to mention something we've gone over before, then use the terminology "I" used (unless you just like to post and hear yourself talk).

I said it was a CLOSED SYSTEM ... not Circular Logic.

You say tomato...I say...It's the same thing!!

 

[michel]

You say tomato...I say...It's the same thing!!

Fade, you said we were being repetetive by calling the Bible circular reasoning, thus trying to make it look like I used that term, when in fact, YOU used it. I called it a Closed System.

A CLOSED SYSTEM is a viable operating system.

CIRCULAR LOGIC is false logic based on the conclusion being based on the points therein.

I would never use the term circular logic when describing the Bible.

 

[Fade]

Fade, you said we were being repetetive by calling the Bible circular reasoning, thus trying to make it look like I used that term, when in fact, YOU used it. I called it a Closed System.

A CLOSED SYSTEM is a viable operating system.

CIRCULAR LOGIC is false logic based on the conclusion being based on the points therein.

I would never use the term circular logic when describing the Bible.

Whether you use the term or not is irrelavant. You are using circular logic.
Using quotes from the Bible to validate your beliefs about the bible. End of story.

 

[michel]

Whether you use the term or not is irrelavant. You are using circular logic.
Using quotes from the Bible to validate your beliefs about the bible. End of story.

Would you rather I use quotes from the Encyclopedia to validate the Bible???

I'm lost as to what point you're making.

I believe the Bible, therefore I quote the Bible.

If I showed you my Birth Certificate to prove I exist, is that CIRCULAR LOGIC?

 

[Green Gaia]

Fade, you said we were being repetetive by calling the Bible circular reasoning, thus trying to make it look like I used that term, when in fact, YOU used it. I called it a Closed System.

A CLOSED SYSTEM is a viable operating system.

CIRCULAR LOGIC is false logic based on the conclusion being based on the points therein.

I would never use the term circular logic when describing the Bible.

Maybe you can help us understand what you mean if you explain the difference between "A CLOSED SYSTEM" and "CIRCULAR LOGIC". What makes a "closed system" a viable operating system and not just another way of saying "circular reasoning"?

 

[Green Gaia]

If I showed you my Birth Certificate to prove I exist, is that CIRCULAR LOGIC?

No, because one validates the other. You're using the Bible to validate the Bible. That is circular logic.

 

[Fade]

Would you rather I use quotes from the Encyclopedia to validate the Bible???

I'm lost as to what point you're making.

I believe the Bible, therefore I quote the Bible.

If I showed you my Birth Certificate to prove I exist, is that CIRCULAR LOGIC?

No because they (you and the certificate) are two seperate entities that validate each other. You are using the bible to validate the bible.

edit ^^^ maize how did you get that response in so quickly?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

CIRCULAR LOGIC is false logic based on the conclusion being based on the points therein. I would never use the term circular logic when describing the Bible.

Nor would I.

I would, however, use circular logic to describe your defense of biblical inerrancy because that is precisely what it is: "my bible is inerrent because my bible says that my bible is inerrant."

 

[michel]

Maybe you can help us understand what mean if you explain the difference between "A CLOSED SYSTEM" and "CIRCULAR LOGIC". What makes a "closed system" a viable operating system and not just another way of saying "circular reasoning"?

Maybe I'll just pass, but thanks for the offer.

You'll have to ask whomever brought up circular logic that question (I can't remember who used it), because he said I was used it. I don't even understand it completely. I used the term CLOSED SYSTEM.

If, in fact, a CLOSED SYSTEM and CIRCULAR LOGIC are one and the same, then fine, I've learned something.

You say tomato, I say tomatto.

 

[Green Gaia]

edit ^^^ maize how did you get that response in so quickly?

Two cups of coffee. :bounce

 

[michel]

No because they (you and the certificate) are two seperate entities that validate each other. You are using the bible to validate the bible.

edit ^^^ maize how did you get that response in so quickly?

Fine with me, Fade. The thing is though, there are so many outside sources used to validate the Bible, that I just thought you'd be interested in seeing the Bible validate itself. But if not, well, that's the beauty of the Bible. Wether it's self-validating or external-validating, either way, it's validated.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that believing the bible is inerrant comes down to making a leap of faith that the bible is inerrant, rather than to any convincing evidence that the bible is inerrant. I think that making that leap of faith is legitimate, so long as one recognizes and acknowledges what one is doing. The problem I have is when one makes that leap of faith, yet declares that one's view is based on evidence rather than a simple leap of faith. That seems to me to be self deception.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The thing is though, there are so many outside sources used to validate the Bible, that I just thought you'd be interested in seeing the Bible validate itself.

The Tanach is many things, including myth, folklore, poetry, civil code, and political propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, there is no (nada, zip, zero) "outside sources" validating its mythic/theological elements.

 

[Fade]

Fine with me, Fade. The thing is though, there are so many outside sources used to validate the Bible, that I just thought you'd be interested in seeing the Bible validate itself. But if not, well, that's the beauty of the Bible. Wether it's self-validating or external-validating, either way, it's validated.

I see no evidence for validation of biblical inerancy and I'm sorry, but I just can't take your word for it. I'm too much of a skeptic for that.