<< (DAVE 4/22) Izz: Agreed. Everytime epistomology or
theism etc are brought up, the atheist or errantist demands that
we stick with "errancy" discussions,
DAR
This is because this is the errancy list.
DAVE
and thereforeavoids the issues. Why is this?
DAR
Because the issues are off of the topic of Bible errancy.
DAVE
Since there is a creation account in the Bible, creation is
admissible as subject material for debate on an errancy listing.
DAR
Only to the degree that you can demonstrate the creation
account to be inerrant or that we can demonstrate it to contain
contradiction or inconsistency.
Go ahead, have your childish creation event. How does this in
any way make your Bible inerrant?
DAVE
Same with the existence of God.>>
DAR
As we have said many times:
Go ahead, have your Yahweh. How does this necessarily
make your Bible inerrant?
DAVE
Same with the existence of hell.>>
DAR
Go ahead, have your hell. How does this make your Bible
inerrant?
DAVE
And with the issue of sin.>>
DAR
Go ahead, have your sin doctrine. How does this make the
Bible inerrant?
DAVE
And with our "purpose" on earth,>>
DAR
Imagine whatever "purpose" you like. How does it follow
this in some way makes your Bible inerrant?
DAVE
and our eventual "destiny".>>
DAR
Imagine whatever "destiny" you like. How does it follow that
this in some way makes your Bible inerrant?
DAVE
And much more.>>
DAR
Go ahead and imagine much more. Imagine anything you
like other than the item in question: biblical inerrancy. How do
your imaginings in some way make your Bible inerrant?
DAVE
ALL of this is addressed in this supposedly errant book, yet
you and others wish to avoid discussion on them. Why is this?>>
DAR
This because even if they were all true, it would not
necessarily follow that your Bible must be inerrant. Therefore
we would be arguing about things which aside from being
unprovable and superstitious would not make your claim for
biblical inerrancy true, even if you could demonstrate them.
And of course you cannot. But you do love to talk about them.
DAVE
Is there something about these issues that troubles you in such
a way that you DON'T believe that the Bible is necessarily
errant about them? [...]>>
DAR
No, there is nothing about these off topic issues that trouble
me in any way. This is because these superstitions you speak of
are contained in a book that you have not demonstrated in any
way to be the inerrant word of your Yahweh.
And you know what the really exciting part is Dave? You
never will.
Considering all the of the clear and straightforward
contradictions and absurdities we have posted over the years
(which you and the other inerrantists have consistently ducked)
the Bible seems to me to be nothing other than the words of
men, usually barbaric ones. Can you demonstrate it to be
something other than the words of men? Can you give us a
reason why anyone should think it is inerrant?
I didn't think so.
DAVE
So these calls to "get back to errancy discussions" are really the
ultimate dodge - the real issues all of a sudden "don't apply" to
biblical inerrancy - - I wonder why. >>
DAR
Because the issues you give above do not require biblical
inerrancy. Thus, as you say, they do not apply to biblical
inerrancy.
Go ahead, assume them all. Now tell me how or why this
makes your Bible inerrant.
Can you do it?
Didn't think so.
cheers,
Darrel
------------------------
"I believe in miracles, but not in occurrences that have no
explanation." --Dave 2/8