Who goes to a creationist museum?

BBC News ^ | June 14, 2009 | Peter Jackson

[Buck W.]

No, Genesis is not literally true. The baseless connection to the cross is your own.

[ReignOfError]

God claims inerrancy in His Word, Jesus claims inerrancy in the Word of God, the Word of God claims inerrancy in what it says

Tidy little circular argument you've got there.

[Buck W.]

I missed the quite from the bible that said the value was rounded. Can you cite it for me?

[MICR0MEGAS]

Who goes to a creationist museum? Certainly not me. I’d never make it out alive—I’d die laughing.

[allmendream]

Wow all that and yet you STUDIOUSLY avoided answering the question.

Despite hermeneutics, people can and do derive erroneous interpretations of scripture.

What you are attempting to claim is not just the inerrancy of scripture, but your own inerrancy in interpreting scripture.

Once someone has derived an erroneous interpretation of scripture (such as the Earth not moving), what mechanism is there to correct this error?

[Star Traveler]

You said — The point is that the bible is not literally inerrant, although divinely inspired.

—

So *you* say, BuckW., as you already admitted.

And you know that others, like the Evangelical Christians that I posted about in Post #42 — *do* say that it is inerrant. And anyone who wishes to, can see their pretty complete statement on the issue of Biblical Inerrancy...

As for the Biblical Hermeneutic, the interpretation, you can also see the statement from the Evangelical Christians in Post #67...

[MrB]

So it’s up to the Work in question to prove itself to be divinely inspired...

which it does through the fulfillment of prophecy and consistency across time and “authors”.

[Star Traveler]

Well, you can take it or leave it... as for me... I’ll take it and go with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Hermeneutic stated therein...

[Buck W.]

“With the tools of the time of Kings, I doubt that they had the ability to measure to the 10th of a unit in order to take advantage of a more accurate value for pi.”

That doesn’t matter, as the words of the Old Testament, we’re told, are not just historical documents recorded by the common people of the time. They are, in fact, divine, inerrant truth. If your explanation of pi is accurate, then the commoners who similarly wrote about Noah may have gotten the number of animals on the ark or the duration of the flood wrong as well.

In fact, the bible is allegorical. That’s the explanation.

[Star Traveler]

It’s nice and tidy when God says it... and then follows through with what He said... :-)

[allmendream]

Then why not say it was ‘31 cubits and a little more’ round all about, rather than 30?

If one wishes to read the Bible for meaning then it really doesn't matter either way as the description of the molten chalice is accurate enough for the Bible's purposes; but if one wishes to read meaning into the Bible and extrapolate that meaning such that it supersedes scientific observation; then accuracy of such type would be a minimum requirement IMHO.

[Buck W.]

You seem to be proudly drawing some conclusion from a previous post of mine, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.

[MrB]

“If your explanation of pi is accurate, then the commoners who similarly wrote about Noah may have gotten the number of animals on the ark or the duration of the flood wrong as well.”

That’s an invalid equivalence, as the technology of the time would allow an accurate count of the animals and the number of days of the flood. It would not allow a more accurate measurement of pi.

[allmendream]

Once again you FAIL to answer a simple question.

Once someone has derived an erroneous Biblical interpretation, what mechanism do you suggest to correct the error?

[MrB]

the bible is allegorical. That’s the explanation

Yep, sure... and it was just written by "a bunch of angry men" as I heard a liberal "Christian" recently claim. (She left out "white" because they weren't, but you could just hear that in her tone.)

[Buck W.]

Perhaps they miscounted, or didn’t see them all...

The point is that measurement error would not obscure divine, literally inerrant revelation. Stating unequivocally that pi=3 is incorrect. Close, but no cigar to the adherents of literal inerrancy.

[Dianna]

I’ve been. I don’t bash books I’ve never read either.

[allmendream]

During the time when Kings II was written both the Egyptians and Babylonians had a more accurate measure of pi than 3.

A child with a stick and a string can come up with a better approximation for pi than 3. I know because my geometry teacher made us do it.

Besides, limitations of human measurements should not in any way affect the accuracy of the Bible, unless you think that it was written without the inspiration of God.

[reagan_fanatic]

My 21 year-old Son believes in God and has visited the Creation Museum simply out of curiosity. He is a bright, intelligent hard working kid with a good head on his shoulders, and a damn sight smarter than some of the smug posters here on FR.

[Star Traveler]

I suggest using the hermeneutic given.... that’s my suggestion... :-)