<< DAR
Could you tell me on what page my book says that there is
no God Dave?>>
(DAVE 4/11) Darrel: You obviously know your book well
enough to know I couldn't do that - so I won't waste any time
trying.
DAR
It would be a waste of time because contrary to what you
have said, my book does not address the question of the
existence of God. I did this on purpose. In fact I wrote so that
people like my Dad (certainly theist, even Christian at the
time) could read it without being offending by any assertions
of atheism.
DAVE
However, the premise of your book is based on what then?
DAR
As you must know, the main purpose is to show that the
Bible contradicts itself and is therefore not inerrant. Not
without error. Errant.
(Look in the title Dave: "The Question of Bible Perfection".
this should have tipped you off.)
Christians who are not inerrantists are in the majority (only
about 37% of those in the US who consider themselves
Christian consider themselves inerrantist. This is about 33% of
the population). I deal with this extensively on pages 14 and
15 Dave.
DAVE
However, the premise of your book is based on what then?
That there "is" a God? That there could be a God?
DAR
Not addressed Dave. Not relevant to the subject of the book
(that you have supposedly read).
DAVE
I don't think so. What is the intent of your book? may be
a fairer question.
DAR
Here is something FROM the conclusion of the book, which
YOU have even used as your trailer quote on posts, so you
must have read it:
PAGE 116:
"It is now my [that's me] purpose, as an author, to help
decrease this widespread and unchallenged ignorance that has
long fed the notion of inerrancy and its twin, intolerance. For
it is through knowledge that this manifestly flawed doctrine
[what doctrine Dave? the doctrine of INERRANCY] will
continue to recede."
<<DARREL
Can you give me any example of an argument or
point made that is based upon there not being a god Dave?
That would be neat trick. I don't forget to get back to me on
that.
The closest I came was on page 105 (right side, top) where I
said regarding Norman Geisler's circular reasoning: "The
wording just assumes that God exists, a point requiring
proof.">>
<< (DAVE 4/11) Darrel: Yet in your book I don't believe you
say the same type of commetn about an atheist who asserts
God doesn't exist,>>
DAR
Not relevant to my book.
DAVE
or that the Bible is wrong
DAR
That is relevant to my book. There are demonstrable
examples of where the Bible is wrong. I give hundreds in the
book.
DAVE
- surely there are writers out there who have made this
assertion
DAR
I make this assertion all the time and all through the book
(although it is better to just quote the Bible verses side by side
and let the reader figure it out).
How many donkey's did Jesus ride on Dave? Was it one as
Mark requires ("a colt", "loose him and bring him") or was it
two as Matthew requires ("an ass tied, and a colt with her:
loose them, and bring them")? The correct answer is that in
Mark he rides one and in Matthew he rides two. If two does
not equal one, the Bible is errant.
Think Dave. Repeat if necessary.
DAVE
and deserve your "a point requiring proof"
DAR
Proof that I provide abundantly in the book and which
appears almost daily upon the errancy-l (when we aren't
chasing down inerrantist rabbit trails and diversions).
DAVE
- yet you seem to focus on just the writers who believe in God
- why is this? Especially in light of the fact that you say you
are not basing on the premise that there is no God?
DAR
I think you are rambling here. Millions of Christians
understand the Bible to be a very errant book. Millions of
Christians would not be in disagreement with my book. Still, I
usually find that they are surprised that there are SO MANY
examples of blatant error. They are also usually surprised to
learn of some of the atrocities and examples of human sacrifice
which were not given very much attention in church.
<< DARREL
I specifically went out of my way to NOT address or
affirm atheism in this book.>>
(DAVE 4/11) Darrel: Fair enough. Yet you haven't argued it
either.>>
DAR
Not relevant to the book. As I have said, I was not even an
atheist when I started it. I don't think the word even appears
except for where I quote the American Atheist group in one
place to show that even they think the Bible has some valid
history (pg. 95).
(DAVE 4/11) <<snip>> So, in your book, do you feel that
you can now unequivocally state that the bible is inerrant?
DAR
I think you mean "errant" here instead of "inerrant."
Even when corrected, the question is too stupid for
comment.
Read the first paragraph of chapter six:
***
"The three hundred or so conflicting scriptures given in this
book represent only the tip of a much larger iceberg. In his
newsletter, Biblical Errancy, Dennis McKinsey has been
reporting Bible contradictions for 13 years-and has not
exhausted the subject! If the Bible does not contain a single
contradiction, then what book does? The word "contradiction"
becomes so neutered as to be meaningless." (pg. 87)
***
DAVE
And if so, does that not mean that the Bible is wrong about
there being a God?
DAR
I think so now. But I very purposely went out of my way to
NOT bring this up in my book. I wanted it to be readable by
Christians. I didn't want them shocked or scared way by
comments, even suggestions of atheism. The American Atheist
Press has a book that is very similar in which they too place
Bible contradictions side by side. It also has very strongly
worded atheist comments in it which would cause people like
my dad to not read it. This is why I created mine. Other
reasons too.
Sure I think when readers are done they will think the Bible
god is a buffoon, but Christians are well trained in making up
excuses for the idiotic god spoken of in the Bible.
DAVE
Or do you now propose that you can select which parts are
errant and which parts aren't?
DAR
This is EXACTLY what the vast majority of Christians do
Dave. Ever heard of the phrase "cafeteria Catholic's"? We
know you do this too Dave. We asked you for money, I asked
you for a book. Very contrary to what Jesus says you did not
comply. Apparently you have chosen to think those words of
Jesus are errant. There are many other examples of course. Any
one who tried to follow the New Testament today would
probably be insane. Ingersoll said this first:
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old
Testament he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow
the teachings of the New, he would be insane." --Ingersoll
(DAVE 4/11) Darrel: A question on this: they just released
the fact that there might be an ocean, or even life on Europa...
>>
DAR
I have dealt with variations of this question over and over
with you Dave and choose to not follow down your Europa
rabbit trail at this time.
cheers,
Darrel
--------------------
"I can only speak for myself here, but I have never called
the Bible the "good" book - I think it's lame actually." --
DAVE 4/11
Small shameless ad:
I mail out a sample of this book Dave is talking about (The
Perfect Mirror: The Question of Bible Perfection). In some
ways the sample is just as useful. It has some of the better
examples (about thirty I think) of error and you can easily copy
some pages and hand them out to an inerrantist Christians (i.e.
JW's at your door).
If you would like me to send you one, send $2.00 to:
Hairy Tickle Press
2367-1 Green Acres Rd.
Suite 127
Fayetteville, AR. 72703
**********