Originally Posted by George_De_Vries_3rd

AS, that's exactly what I mean-Wikipedia? a secular or even worse source to answer questions on Biblical inerrancy? That's what I mean about not knowing what you don't know and, again, not meaning that disrespectfully.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but persisting in it and basing a belief system on it without further study is, as we say, the definition of insanity.

If I knew you were sincerely searching for answers, for truth, I'd spend all the time with you per PMs or cell phones that it would take to answer your questions or try to and send you to legitimate sources for the same. But I won't parry here on the internet arguing with someone who intransigent in their ignorance. If you'd study the issue intensively, knew the facts and then reject it I would accept that.

Mojo-, about those who don't offer an argument for the faith- What do you want here on the internet? Their are volumes written on the apologetic (an explanation or defense of) of the Christian faith- more confirming science, archealogy, philosophy, etc than you could cram into a four year seminary program. And the same thing applies as the response to AS-most folks like you use circular reasoning without recognizing it or studying the issue, meaning you start out with what you want to believe and end at the same point filling in the middle with feelings, experiences, or what you read, etc., that agrees with your point of view.

But if you are seriously interested PM me.

Regardless, I hope you all have a good week.


George, of course I would start with secular, scientific sources to corroborate the factual claims within a religious text. in this instance I used Wikipedia because it's well footnotes and written at an easy to read level. Anyone who wants to read the original sources, can. It also demonstrates the low level of knowledge of some of those who claim to know the idea's I put forth are wrong, yet their familiarity with the subject isn't even up to what's in Wikipedia, let alone any real understanding of the subject.

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is what you accuse me of, circular reasoning. Neither of the well know biblical stories of Moses nor Joshua are collaborated by archaeology. Other archaeological and historical claims fail as well, sufficient to dispute the idea of an inerrant bible.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell