The History of Air?

[Volbrigade]

Lists of “fun facts� can be entertaining. Those focused on natural phenomena are a good way to promote an interest in science, and what it reveals to us about God’s creation, by drawing our attention to items that awaken our wonder and awe. Clearly, God has equipped us with curiosity regarding the workings of the natural world; as well as the capacity to explore and understand how He has designed it (which is the proper function of science).

However, “fun� facts are not fun, if they are not facts.

But that is what uniformitarian (“the present is the key to the past�; slow, gradual changes over vast expanses of time), evolutionist presuppositions are consistently presented as: unarguable facts -- which they categorically are not.

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting “50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth�.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement – for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several “facts� involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred “millions of years� ago. For instance, this one:

“Dinosaurs could only exist because… the earth’s atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes.� ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is tempted to embrace this claim -- although with stipulations. On the face of it, it appears to support models of a dramatically different pre-Flood global environment. Our current post-Flood environment has been altered by the cataclysmic events associated with the release of the “Fountains of the Deep� (Genesis 8:2); the subsequent submersion of the earth’s entire surface under water; and the massive climatic changes that those events triggered, including an Ice Age that lasted several centuries.

The disappearance of the giant dinosaurs and arthropods in the altered post-Flood environment suggests that their inability to thrive in its lower-oxygen atmosphere may have been a cause. It would seem that conceding the “fact� of higher oxygen levels in the past, makes it possible to win the argument on this point when discussing origins and history. Changing the paradigm of those higher oxygen levels to a pre-Flood environment reinterprets the existing data in terms of a Biblical “lens�, or worldview. This kind of paradigm change applies to such pivotal factors as the fossil record and radiometric dating, as well.

But caution is advised. The eagerness to accept a theory in order to score a point with regard to Biblical truth must be tempered with careful scientific analysis of the existing theory. This kind of testing is needed to determine the theory’s validity under “real world� conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scripture’s magisterial role over science. It is within that framework that normal scientific operational procedures can be used to arrive at the best explanations to describe past phenomena (for which direct observation and measurement is not possible), based on the forensic evidence those phenomena have left for us to study.

Sometimes this process involves acknowledging the slaying of a “beautiful hypothesis� by an “ugly fact� (per T. Huxley). An unyielding, uncompromising approach to analyzing evidence has produced a revision of several arguments once cherished by YECs. In this way, science – in its proper ministerial (subordinate) role to Scripture, can arrive at the best possible explanation for the evidence as presented.

In the case of higher oxygen levels in the pre-Flood atmosphere as an explanation for the large size attained by reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods in that environment (and their disappearance in the post-Flood environment), the evidence is not just inconclusive: it is questionable (some of the factors which have been reassessed include the presence of higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles; higher air pressure being necessary for pterosaur flight; giant insects proving higher oxygen levels; et. al.).

Facts arrived at through scientific analysis that illuminate the design and order God imposed on His creation – even the fallen version of it that we inhabit – are fascinating, and they’re fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as “matter is all that exists�) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as “facts�, it’s not fun – but rather leads to confusion, and what The Bible refers to as “false knowledge� (1 Timothy 6:20).

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of Scripture as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is God’s creation.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 158 by micatala]

If, in fact, you are willing to go to such rhetorical lengths in order to attempt some defense for inerrancy, then in fact, you make inerrancy worthless.

Not at all. Let me get this straight: If I don't have a response to your objections that fits on a postage stamp, then inerrancy is worthless? Well, might as well be hanged for a thief, rather than a jaywalker, and add to my transgressions of "going to rhetorical lengths" here.

Let me ask you this. Is the Bible inspired? "God-breathed"? Or merely a collection of tales, some vaguely historical -- some clearly not -- that was cobbled together over time, through the vagaries of happenstance? With no more real meaning or purpose than the universe itself, if it is merely the product of some random act of cosmic flatulence?

Is there a compromise, a middle ground, between these two poles? Did God "sorta" inspire His written word? "Kinda" guide it a little, here and there? Is that a self-limitation on His part? Or is He truly limited in His power?

I admit -- it would be easier to defend inerrancy if Matthew didn't describe the angel as sitting on the rolled-away stone. It would be easier if all the Gospels presented exactly the same account, in the same order, with each detail corresponding perfectly. It would, in fact, be easier (perhaps), if they were all identical, ver batim. But then, why the need for four? And if, in fact, there were no discrepancy whatsoever among them -- four accounts, written from different perspectives, with different emphases -- wouldn't that be suspicious?

We know that God imparted His inspired word through the capacities of men; that because He "breathed" the words, it did not overshadow, for instance, the elements of each writer's style (e.g., Isaiah's grandiose prose; John Mark's action-centered "screenplay").

That He allowed the minor differences in arrangement of the stories regarding the empty tomb -- the most important event in the history of the universe -- is intriguing. But I believe, with all the conviction of the most committed fundamentalist Darwiniac that some day science will explain how the universe got here (even if not "why"; and if it doesn't, that it doesn't matter, anyway), that there is a deliberate reason why the Holy Spirit guided these differences into standing; and that we will at some point know what they are -- perhaps even on this side of the divide of death.

But then, I believe the Bible to be infallible. And inerrant, in the sense of the truth that it imparts. For instance, the "withered immediately" passage, which I thought I explained.

Now, if you don't believe the Bible to be infallible, or inerrant (I actually prefer "infallible", but I'm fine with either or both), that's fine with me. But I believe that position leads to error, such as the compromise with philosophical/religious positions masquerading as science, which are predicated on the assumption that God does not exist.

Or the heretical view that Jesus' resurrection was not physical, bodily; but that He "lives on in our hearts", etc.

I will concede that it is the work of diligent scholarship to determine the ways in which it is inerrant -- and that scholarship has discovered airtight evidence of it, in the integrated nature of its design; it's numerous prophecies that have come to pass -- and those we see being fulfilled in our time; the symbolic, metaphorical (etc.) consistency of the text over thousands of years; and in the amazing macro- and micro-codes that it has yielded to detailed analysis -- and how many more it undoubtedly contains.

Just as it is the work of diligent, dedicated scientists to discover the truth in regard to astro-physics, geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, etc., and how they line up with the Biblical account of our shared reality.

P.S. -- I have no objections, at a glance, to McCulloch's timeline. It appears to establish the Flood at approximately 2,500 years before Christ; the OT genealogies establish the Creation at around 1,500 years before that.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that Enoch had direct, personal conversations with Adam.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 158 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

This does not address that in one narrative, the tree does wither immediately, and in the other, it does not. Your response here simply ignores the reality of what the text says and attempts to divert from that reality.

Now, one can certainly consider the metaphorical interpretations you offer for the meaning of the withering fig, but those interpretations do not depend on the gospels being literally true in every fact. For the interpretation, it does not matter, really, if the fig withered at once or a day later. But again, those interpretive issues do not address the failure of inerrancy to be a reasonably justifiable doctrine.

Hmmm. I once had a fig tree in my backyard when I lived in central California. It never bore any fruit, but I didn't realize that was a sin worthy of a divine curse.

Here is another example of the effectivness of a Biblical curse. I learned this in Sunday School. Seriously, I would appreciate your interpretation of it. It doesn't seem to be a parable, but rather a straightforward narrative. There are some bears in the woods near where I live now. Should I be frightened?

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings N2:23-24

[micatala]

[Replying to post 158 by micatala]

If, in fact, you are willing to go to such rhetorical lengths in order to attempt some defense for inerrancy, then in fact, you make inerrancy worthless.

Not at all. Let me get this straight: If I don't have a response to your objections that fits on a postage stamp, then inerrancy is worthless?

This is a straw man. Firstly, there is no need to fit a response onto a postage stamp, and I never suggested that. The first issue is offering no response at all. Secondly, even the fig tree objection you did respond to involved re-defining words and the plain language in the text to such an extent that you essentially make what the text says so vague that the idea of inerrancy becomes meaningless.

Mark says:

When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.� And his disciples heard him say it.

There is no evident withering that happens at this point. The disciples hear the curse, but no change in the tree occurs at this point. The next day, they come back.

20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!�

Clearly, it is only now, the next day, that any visually detectable change has occurred.

In Matthew:

18 Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!� Immediately the tree withered.

20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?� they asked.

The tree in Matthew does immediately show visual changes.


Now, I think your theological interpretations of the reason for Jesus cursing the fig, and its relation to Adam, etc., is not unreasonable. However, that is separate issue from your claims of inerrancy. Nothing you say reconciles the two clearly different meanings of the narrative facts in these different passages.

Let me ask you this. Is the Bible inspired? "God-breathed"? Or merely a collection of tales, some vaguely historical -- some clearly not -- that was cobbled together over time, through the vagaries of happenstance? With no more real meaning or purpose than the universe itself, if it is merely the product of some random act of cosmic flatulence?

Is there a compromise, a middle ground, between these two poles? Did God "sorta" inspire His written word? "Kinda" guide it a little, here and there? Is that a self-limitation on His part? Or is He truly limited in His power?

These are legitimate questions, but again, do nothing to support the reasonableness of the doctrine of inerrancy. My personal view is that the Bible is inspired, as you say, God-breathed, which is the term usually given in I Timothy. Was it cobbled together over time? Well, I would not use that term, but clearly, the books were written at various times, and it also took some additional time for those books to be collected together in the two volumes, OT and NT.

What 'inspired' means is, of course, open to interpretation. That notion is clearly in its substance more vague than the notion of a plant withering, or whether 10 or 11 disciples were present in the upper room when Jesus came, or whether that was the first appearance or not of Jesus to the disciples. If you wish to view negatively notions of inspiration that are less direct than God dictating the manuscripts word for word to the human authors, that is your choice. I fail to see how that view justifies your negative implications about vaguer notions of inspiration.

I admit -- it would be easier to defend inerrancy if Matthew didn't describe the angel as sitting on the rolled-away stone. It would be easier if all the Gospels presented exactly the same account, in the same order, with each detail corresponding perfectly. It would, in fact, be easier (perhaps), if they were all identical, ver batim. But then, why the need for four? And if, in fact, there were no discrepancy whatsoever among them -- four accounts, written from different perspectives, with different emphases -- wouldn't that be suspicious?

Whether inerrancy is easier or harder to defend under other hypothetical versions of the gospels is not the point. The point is that the standard definition of inerrancy simply does not work using the texts as they are. The fact that these texts resulted from an oral history which resulted in these discrepancies is reality. Your attempts to impose the notion of inerrancy is not a problem with the texts, it is a problem created by the assumptions you wish to impose on the text.

We know that God imparted His inspired word through the capacities of men; that because He "breathed" the words, it did not overshadow, for instance, the elements of each writer's style (e.g., Isaiah's grandiose prose; John Mark's action-centered "screenplay").

"Know" is too strong. As Christians, we believe God inspired the writers. Certainly I would agree that this inspiration did not trump the style's of each writer. I would go further to say that the writers maintained their own identity at least to some extent with respect to the audiences they were specifically addressing and the agendas they had for writing.

That He allowed the minor differences in arrangement of the stories regarding the empty tomb -- the most important event in the history of the universe -- is intriguing. But I believe, with all the conviction of the most committed fundamentalist Darwiniac that some day science will explain how the universe got here (even if not "why"; and if it doesn't, that it doesn't matter, anyway), that there is a deliberate reason why the Holy Spirit guided these differences into standing; and that we will at some point know what they are -- perhaps even on this side of the divide of death.

Going off on a tangent to the creation of the universe is not really relevant. I could accept the Holy Spirit may have had reasons for how the inspiration happened. However, I also think the discrepancies can be explained by more mundane considerations. Still, NONE of this negates that there ARE discrepancies, and these discrepancies are clearly of a nature to make the usual notion of factual inerrancy untenable.

But then, I believe the Bible to be infallible. And inerrant, in the sense of the truth that it imparts. For instance, the "withered immediately" passage, which I thought I explained.

Some writers do define infallible and inerrant differently. Infallible can be taken to mean that the Bible is reliable with respect to matters of faith and its purpose in conveying God's will or instruction. That definition would allow for errors of fact, as long as they did not affect essential matters of faith. Infallibility in this sense is defensible, at least much more defensible, than factual inerrancy.

As far as the withering passage, theological explanations and your other comments most certainly did not explain the factual discrepancy in any reasonable way. From a factual standpoint, either visible withering occurred on the spot or it did not. Either the disciples or some of the witnessed the withering directly after the curse, or no one noticed it until the next day. It cannot be both.

Either Judas kissed Jesus in the garden, as told in Mark, or Jesus was arrested without ever having been kissed, as told in John. It cannot be both.

Now, if you don't believe the Bible to be infallible, or inerrant (I actually prefer "infallible", but I'm fine with either or both), that's fine with me. But I believe that position leads to error, such as the compromise with philosophical/religious positions masquerading as science, which are predicated on the assumption that God does not exist.

This is the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences. If you want to make the case that accepting that the Bible is not inerrant has led or might lead to certain consequences, fine. But those consequences do not change the truth.

Or the heretical view that Jesus' resurrection was not physical, bodily; but that He "lives on in our hearts", etc.

What is or is not to be considered heretical does not change the factual truths of events as described in the gospels or elsewhere in the Bible. This is again the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences.

I will concede that it is the work of diligent scholarship to determine the ways in which it is inerrant -- and that scholarship has discovered airtight evidence of it, in the integrated nature of its design;

Assertions that scholars support inerrancy does not address the clear discrepancies I have pointed out.

it's numerous prophecies that have come to pass -- and those we see being fulfilled in our time; the symbolic, metaphorical (etc.) consistency of the text over thousands of years; and in the amazing macro- and micro-codes that it has yielded to detailed analysis -- and how many more it undoubtedly contains.

Again, alluding to vaguely worded prophecies that may be interpreted now to have occurred does nothing to address the clear factual discrepancies I have pointed out. WE could certainly debate some of these prophecies, but if there are factual issues in other passages, the Bible is still not inerrant in the usual way that term is defined regardless of whether prophecies in some parts of the Bible can be shown to have come true.

P.S. -- I have no objections, at a glance, to McCulloch's timeline. It appears to establish the Flood at approximately 2,500 years before Christ; the OT genealogies establish the Creation at around 1,500 years before that.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that Enoch had direct, personal conversations with Adam.

I will proceed taking this into account as your view.

A couple of other questions for clarification. Of the sediments that exist today on the earth, which would you hold were laid down during the flood, which, if any, were laid down subsequently, and which, if any, were laid down prior to the flood? I am not asking for excruciating detail, but, for example, if we find trilobites in a sedimentary layer, was that laid down before, during, or after the flood? Are there sediments containing fossils that were laid down after the flood? Any before, or are all sediments before the flood devoid of life?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 163 by micatala]

I think one error you're making in the argument against the inerrancy of Scripture is the assumption that an omission in one source contradicts its exclusion in another.

For instance, just because John doesn't mention Judas' kiss doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It is just not included in the action of John's account. If John had said "Judas tried to kiss Jesus, but Jesus wouldn't let him..." or something of that nature, you'd have a contradiction.

The same applies to the fig tree. It "withered immediately" in Matthew. What does that mean? Did the leaves suddenly droop? In Mark, the tree had withered the next day "from its roots". Does that mean that the whole tree was dead as a hammer, perhaps leafless?

The same with the accounts at the tomb. Most of the diversity in detail can be successfully harmonized. Some features are pretty resistant to that harmonization -- the aforementioned account of the angel sitting on the stone being one.

You maintain that speaks against inerrancy. I disagree.

In the first place, if all the accounts are faithfully recorded versions from different perspectives, that is a strong argument AGAINST errancy. And the fact that they diverge in detail -- and especially the fact that the women are the only "heroes", and the men come across less than favorably (essentially cowering in the upper room, until the women bring them the news), powerfully supports that argument.

In the second place, how do we know that the way the story is presented in Matthew (which seems to me to be the biggest "outlier" of the accounts; including the ascension accounts, which do not differ significantly, imo, and what differences are there can be accounted for by the 40-day window of time) does not contain some significance, a deeper meaning, than has been currently mined from the text (at least that I'm aware of)? That the Holy Spirit hasn't embedded information within the text that points to His unmistakable authorship, the way the dozens of encrypted heptatic structures in the last 12 verses of Mark do?

Before continuing further, let me see if I understand your position clearly.

You assert that the differences in detail among certain aspects of the Gospel accounts negates the inerrancy of Scripture, though not necessarily its infallibility. That is, that because fallen and limited men set forth the accounts, they can be lacking in accuracy relative to the events that transpired, though still being faithful to the truth of those events -- i.e., that because Judas doesn't kiss Jesus in John's account, it doesn't follow that Jesus was not arrested, crucified, and resurrected.

Is that fairly close to your premise?

If so, I say: what of it? What is the practical application of this view? Does it mean that we should suspect every account in Scripture as lacking in journalistic accuracy? Or does it mean that we can be assured of the truth of Scripture, whatever seeming variations in interpretation they may present?

If the latter, then I submit that rather than being conditionally errant; they are categorically inerrant. And in cases where there seems to be a discrepancy, they await the proper interpretation. And, I add here, editorially: that is happening in our time. When Daniel wrote "and knowledge shall increase", he was referring to the leaps in scientific understanding in our time, of course. But also, and much more importantly, to our understanding of God's word, and what it has been proclaiming to us for centuries.

A great example is 1 Kings 7:23.

Now, in regard to your last paragraph: the vast preponderance of the fossil record was deposited at the time of the Flood. It has been added to since, almost exclusively due to localized catastrophic events (e.g., vulcanism, tectonic shifts) of the very same sort that were globalized during the Flood; and which produced rapid sedimentation, burial, and encasement of the specimens. A phenomenon such as the La Brea tar pits is obviously a post-Flood example of preservation, operating under different processes than mineralization of bones and tissue in sedimentary rock.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 163 by micatala]

I think one error you're making in the argument against the inerrancy of Scripture is the assumption that an omission in one source contradicts its exclusion in another.

I disagree. I see the argument against the inerrantacy of scripture is contradictions and impossibilities, as well as misrepresentations distortions.

When there are purposeful misrepresentations and contradictions, well, that shows there are errors.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 163 by micatala]

I think one error you're making in the argument against the inerrancy of Scripture is the assumption that an omission in one source contradicts its exclusion in another.

No, I have taken that into account already.

For instance, just because John doesn't mention Judas' kiss doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It is just not included in the action of John's account. If John had said "Judas tried to kiss Jesus, but Jesus wouldn't let him..." or something of that nature, you'd have a contradiction.

I would agree that when a narrative leaves out a detail, it is possible that detail happen, but you are mistaken if you think that solves the problem in this case. Read both narratives again. They are VERY different in a number of details.


Mark:

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.� 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!� and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,� said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.� 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

John:

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?�

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,� they replied.

“I am he,� Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,� they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?�

“Jesus of Nazareth,� they said.

8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.� 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.�[a]

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?�

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.

In Mark, they do not arrest Jesus until Judas identifies him with the kiss.

In John, Jesus steps forward, asks who they are looking for, and identifies himself. Judas is with them when Jesus says this and they all fall to the ground.

Peter strikes one with the sword, and THEN he is arrested. In Mark, the sword strike comes AFTER he is arrested.


Where, pray tell, would Judas' kiss go in John's narrative?


If Judas had kissed him before Jesus spoke, they would not have said who they were looking for, they would have already known.

Do you have any logical place in this narrative to put the kiss?



Really. If these two narratives are describing the exact same events, then Wolves of Wall Street and Wall Street.

The same applies to the fig tree. It "withered immediately" in Matthew. What does that mean? Did the leaves suddenly droop? In Mark, the tree had withered the next day "from its roots". Does that mean that the whole tree was dead as a hammer, perhaps leafless?

You are evading the plain meaning of the text. Simply look for where the disciples see that withering has occurred. They clearly did not see any withering in Mark until the next day. They saw it right away in Matthew.

The same with the accounts at the tomb. Most of the diversity in detail can be successfully harmonized. Some features are pretty resistant to that harmonization -- the aforementioned account of the angel sitting on the stone being one.

If these details can be successfully harmonized, then please explain how. The details are not only resistant to harmonization, they rebel incontrovertibly against it.

You maintain that speaks against inerrancy. I disagree.

In the first place, if all the accounts are faithfully recorded versions from different perspectives, that is a strong argument AGAINST errancy. And the fact that they diverge in detail -- and especially the fact that the women are the only "heroes", and the men come across less than favorably (essentially cowering in the upper room, until the women bring them the news), powerfully supports that argument.

Your argument is fallacious. Just because another hypothetical situation is even more inconsistent with inerrancy is not an argument that the texts as they exist are inerrant.

Yes, divergence in detail is consistent with an oral tradition. However, the divergence in detail in this case, because of the details that are given, also indicate that not all of the narratives can be accurate in all details.

In the second place, how do we know that the way the story is presented in Matthew (which seems to me to be the biggest "outlier" of the accounts; including the ascension accounts, which do not differ significantly, imo, and what differences are there can be accounted for by the 40-day window of time) does not contain some significance, a deeper meaning, than has been currently mined from the text (at least that I'm aware of)? That the Holy Spirit hasn't embedded information within the text that points to His unmistakable authorship, the way the dozens of encrypted heptatic structures in the last 12 verses of Mark do?

You are simply ignoring the details I already presented showing the post-resurrection appearances cannot be reconciled.

Before continuing further, let me see if I understand your position clearly.

You assert that the differences in detail among certain aspects of the Gospel accounts negates the inerrancy of Scripture, though not necessarily its infallibility. That is, that because fallen and limited men set forth the accounts, they can be lacking in accuracy relative to the events that transpired, though still being faithful to the truth of those events -- i.e., that because Judas doesn't kiss Jesus in John's account, it doesn't follow that Jesus was not arrested, crucified, and resurrected.

Is that fairly close to your premise?

My position is that inerrancy is not a reasonable position. Further, my position is that inerrancy is poor theology, however, that is a separate argument.



I have to run now, but will try to get back to the rest of the post later.

[help3434]

Infallible can be taken to mean that the Bible is reliable with respect to matters of faith and its purpose in conveying God's will or instruction.

Is this your position? If so why would you trust the Bible to be accurate on matters of faith when it is not about history? I asked that on my thread the book that cried wolf. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 166 by micatala]

My position is that inerrancy is not a reasonable position. Further, my position is that inerrancy is poor theology, however, that is a separate argument.

I disagree on both counts. Again: if the Bible is God's Word, how can it not be inerrant in it's original languages (obviously, there can be mistranslations and paraphrases of the original texts that can contain errors. We must be careful).

An interesting side note: both Hebrew and Greek are alphanumeric, lending themselves to all kinds of authenticating codes within the text: some of them well-documented.

I have to run now, but will try to get back to the rest of the post later.

Great! This is a very interesting, and dare I say, challenging discussion. Very thought provoking. You can always learn something from an informed believer -- something you can rarely say of a secularist.

And let me leave you with this, to mull over if you get a chance.

John wrote his gospel near the end of his long life. He was aware of the other gospels, which were already achieving the status of canon.

Now the purpose of John's account was to emphasize the deity of Christ, "so that we might believe." I already mentioned the seven miracles, the seven "I AM" statements, etc. In the arrest scene, it is clear who is in charge: Jesus. He gives the orders. He, in fact, orchestrated the whole thing, and its timing, by earlier identifying Judas as his betrayer, forcing him to "fish or cut bait".

This resulted in His arrest on a Feast Day -- the last thing the Sanhedrin wanted.

I think John left Judas' kiss out of his account. It had already been mentioned elsewhere; I think he did not want to feature it, or even mention it. He did not want to sully the dignity of his account by including Judas' intimate act of betrayal.

You may consider that an "error", if you wish.

I will decline to join you in that assessment, however.

I consider it yet another example of the way the four gospels, taken together, provide a "quadrophonic" view of Our Lord -- a complete picture. I think it is further proof of the inspired nature of the text. And that which is inspired by God must be, in the strictest sense, without error.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 166 by micatala]

My position is that inerrancy is not a reasonable position. Further, my position is that inerrancy is poor theology, however, that is a separate argument.

I disagree on both counts. Again: if the Bible is God's Word, how can it not be inerrant in it's original languages (obviously, there can be mistranslations and paraphrases of the original texts that can contain errors. We must be careful).

Well then, since we don't have the original texts for ANY of it, it would be impossible to show, one way or another. On the other hand, when it comes to people claiming inerrancy, I see a lot of misrepresenting what the bible actually says. That tells me, well, no, it's full of error.

A inerrant bible would not be so mistranslated. So, it is obvious to me you are wrong.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 168 by Volbrigade]

I would like to piggy-back on my earlier post (Jan 14, 11:33PM), micatala. I have been giving further consideration to the episode of the fig tree, and would like to offer this not implausible scenario:

We know that in addition to the twelve followers hand-picked by Jesus, there was a changing group of fellow travelers, referred to collectively as "disciples", the ranks of which swelled in number to hundreds, on occasion. And within the twelve themselves, there were cliques; the most prominent one being Peter, and the "Sons of Thunder", James and John (Andrew was included for the confidential briefing known as the "Olivet Discourse"; but not at the Transfiguration).

So, imagine this (rather rag-tag?) group of "religious fanatics", strewn along the road from Bethany to Jerusalem. They are talking among themselves in smaller groups as they walk. Matthew is in close proximity to Jesus as He investigates the tree, and pronounces His curse upon it. The tree "withers immediately" -- that is, shows dramatic signs of being "cut off"; leaves droop, whatever. Some (unnamed, individually) of the disciples witness it. Now, let's say that Peter did not follow Jesus over to the tree, for whatever reason. And during the course of the rest of the walk, he is informed of what happened. They had a big day that day -- e.g., Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple...

Hold it.

In my OP, I mentioned Huxley's quote that there is nothing more tragic than "the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

And here, in my composing of the above, I encounter just such an event. The episode with the money-changers simply won't fit in with the timeline in both accounts.

Hmmm. What does this mean? As one who is convinced of Biblical inerrancy, as a matter of both hermeneutics (derived from epistemology) and faith -- what is the explanation?

Thank God for the internet (never thought I'd say that... ).

Here is a link to an interesting explanation, that I think satisfactorily addresses not just the chronology of the fig tree episode; but by implication, some of the other seeming disparities, especially in regard to Matthew's gospel in regard to chronology versus topic:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... ction-the

Many writers have noted that some portions of Matthew’s Gospel are arranged topically, rather than chronologically. D.E. Hiebert observes: “The contents of Matthew, while revealing careful arrangement, are not readily arranged in a systematic outline. The arrangement of the material is largely topical and the central portion of the gospel revolves around five discourses by Jesus� (p. 67). Thiessen provides the following breakdown. “The first four chapters of Matthew are chronological; chs. 5-13 are topical; and chs. 14-28 are again chronological, with the exception of 21:18, 19� (p. 138). Of course Matthew 21:18-19 is the very text that is questioned, chronologically speaking, by the critics.

...

William Hendricksen has a very succinct discussion of the matter. In his commentary on Matthew, he writes:

“That the Gospel writers were not mere copyists but independent authors, each using his own method, appears very clearly in the present instance [21:18-22]. Since part of the Fig Tree story occurred on Monday and part on Tuesday (Mark 11:11,12,19,20), with the cleansing of the temple taking place (on Monday) between these two parts, it is clear that this story could be handled in two ways: (a) chronologically or; (b) topically. Mark follows the first method, describing the first part of the Fig Tree story, the part that took place on Monday morning, in 11:12-14; then, the cleansing of the temple, later that same day, in 11:15-19; and finally, the second part of the Fig Tree story, the part that happened on Tuesday morning, in 11:20-24. Matthew, on the other hand, uses the second method. He wishes to tell the entire story all at once, in one connected and uninterrupted account. In doing this he does not come into real conflict with Mark, for his (Matthew’s) time indications are very indefinite� (p. 773).