PL wrote:
> If the Baptist Hymnal purported to be inspired by God then yes, we should hold consider it inerrant. Since it does not (and nothing besides Scripture does [except apparently you.]), there is no need to hold it to be inerrant.
The Protestant canon does not declare itself to be inerrant. Period.
> You have supposed a priestly source without proof.
Ever read Wellhausen? He gives ample proof of a priestly source.
> You bought the source analysis that has flaws in its very method.
None that affect the obvious existence of a Priestly source.
> Valid reasons have been given why the so-called priestly source is non-existent.
Where? I must have missed them.
> Furthermore, what you have said is exactly what the article I quoted the other day said: The biblical writers had no level of knowledge beyond themselves and therefore were prone to mistakes.
They had knowledge of God and His revelation, yes. They had no knowledge of science and only received knowledge of history.
> Such lack of knowledge cannot be limited simply to matters of history and science.
I agree, but we take it on faith that they got it right, and the evidence is all around us that they did.
> If God revealed anything (such as matters of faith) then clearly he had the ability to reveal everything (such as matters of history and science),
I don't question that God could, but I question whether God did, and He apparently didn't. Apparently, God has better things to do than to teach us all astrophysics and biochemistry through the prophets.
> and it would have been in his best interests not to compromise his theology by calling it into question with false history and science.
Unfortunately for all of us, God created that little thing called "free will" that enabled the Biblical writers to frame the Word of God that they received in whatever form they chose. The Priestly writers thought that Gen 1 served as an excellent polemic against the Enuma Elish based on what they received in Psalm 104. It served the same purpose then as it does now: revealing God as the one true God, a God of order, who made man as the pinnacle of Creation.
God assumed that we were smart enough to know what the purpose of the Bible was. That's why the new covenant is "written on our hearts", to get our heads out of the books. That's why he came in person to earth to warn us about the dangers of worshipping the letter of the law.
But I suppose some of you just can't take Jeremiah and Jesus at their word, can you? Please believe God when He tells you that the Bible is not a science book.
> It is not clear that there is any “Gen 1 source material.” You, nor anyone else, has shown any proof. They have made conjectures beyond what the text will allow.
Gen 1 is theologically based on Psalm 104, which itself is an expanded version of Pharoah Akenaten's "Hymn to the Aten". It served as polemic against the Babylonian Enuma Elish, whose similarities with the Biblical version are
well documented.
> But Scripture makes no distinction about which is true and which is not.
It's ALL true. Why do you not understand that?
> Scripture purports is comments on history and science to be just as true as its comments on theology.
Because that's what the Biblical writers had before them when they put everything together.
> Until you find a scriptural basis for such a dichotomy you will hold it in spite of Scripture.
So what, do I have to find a verse that says, "And lo, something happened which is not really true, but I am telling it to you anyway..."? Unless the Bible explicitly "calls itself a liar", so to speak, you won't believe it?
It's obvious that the Biblical writers used source material. They even quote the names of the books from which they got their material. It's also obvious that individual stories have been brought together in a unified historical framework that isolates them from their original context but preserves their original etiological function. There are some instances where the poetic original and prosaic revision are preserved side-by-side and we can see how the Biblical author took a symbolic statement and interpreted it literally.
> For instance, since no one was there to observe origins of the world, you hold your belief in origins by faith.
Faith that is shaped by the evidence at hand, which overwhelmingly supports evolution.
> You likely have never observed any of the experiments done or witnessed first hand any of the analysis of fossil record.
And hence, I'm unaware of the great conspiracy theory that is the "evolutionary model"?
> You accept it all by faith. That is the issue. You can say “It is a matter of science;” But you have no credible support for that since you are taking by faith the word of men who constantly change their opinions and reorganize their conclusions based on new evidence.
You do the same thing with "ICR science", which is fully refuted over and over by scores of mainstream scientists, but you refuse to accept that refutation because you think that the ICR consists of men who are committed to the truth.
> Death came by sin theologically and therefore the wages of sin is death … except in evolution where death came by inability to survive.
We die because our bodies were made to die. The notion that we die because somebody else sinned is a myth.
> Evolution has denied the theological basis for the causal nexus between sin and death and in its wake it tows the doctrine of eternal conscious torment as the punishment for sin.
We are all sinners, but it's because WE sin, not because Adam sinned.
> Evolution has made God capricious by attributing a penalty of death to sin when death was going to happen anyway.
If you haven't noticed, accepting Jesus doesn't save you from physical death. The wages of sin is spiritual death that comes from separation from God.
> In evolution, there is consequent absolute necessity of the death of Christ for atonement; it is merely the one way among many that God could have chosen. I suppose you do not reject the atonement of Christ.
Christ died to atone for OUR sins, not Adam's. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
> However, you likely are inconsistent on why it is necessary.
Nope.
> Again a statement that is absolutely true and proves more than you want it to. It is a matter of having faith in a different place.
In the RIGHT place, where God wants us to have our faith. Your kind of faith in a book leads to endless warfare with those who disagree on unimportant issues. My kind of faith in Jesus allows the Spirit to move in ways we can't understand.
> Even your views on science are matters of faith placed in a different source than in the revelation of God.
My faith is in the revelation of God. The Bible is not the revelation of God. Jesus is.
> It is not a matter of incontrovertible evidence; it is a matter of who you consider as authoritative.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are authoritative. It's a shame that you follow the example of the Pharisees and reject the path of God.
> Since we have said that the Bible is the final rule for faith and practice, (and I believe you earlier agreed with this),
It's the standard measure (kanon) for faith and practice, yes.
> then it would seem that biblical support for your position would be necessary since as you just admitted it is a matter of (differently placed) faith.
Sure, God has created a new covenant on our hearts. Why do we say that we have the law when the scribes have made it into a lie?
