Your comments are most welcome.
--Krishna
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard,
I believe we (Farrell Till/I and you) have some very serious methodological and definitional differences in our approach to not just the bible, but also to concepts like "proof", "reason", and "scientific".
For example, if you were to say that the Bible is the ultimate standard against which all other sources will have to be measured, then your position is not one that another person can rationally argue against. This does not mean that the others are incapable of debate or are wrong---it just means that before two people can enter into a discussion, they need to agree on a set of very basic axioms. Without this set of axioms, they will always talk past each other. I am sure that your time is very valuable, and that you do not want to spend it arguing with a person whose axioms are so different from yours that no productive discussion results.
I do not believe that whatever the bible says is true. Likewise, I do not believe that whatever the bible says is false either. I believe that the bible has statements that are both true and false, it has statements that are both kind and barbaric, and so on.
Your position is that the bible is literally correct in each and every one of its details. If I asked for proof of your position, and you said that this must be accepted as an axiom, then both of us are wasting our time.
I do not claim to be qualified to discuss scripture with you; Farrell Till will certainly respond to your points.
However, you did make a statement that there is not even _one_ bit of scientific fact that contradicts the bible. I think that this statement is very rash.
I agree to show you one, just one, example of a scientific error in the bible. I am not making this statement is arrogance; I am willing to consider the fact that not everyone is equally familiar with science and that you may not be aware of scientific errors in the bible.
However, before I actually give you the example of a scientific error in the bible, I will ask you, politely request you, to answer the following questions. The reason I am asking these preliminary questions is that they will help clarify our axiomatic stances and avoid an unnecessary expenditure of time on both of our parts.
(*) Will you accept sources external to the bible as valid. For
example, will you accept peer-reviewed scientific journals in
biology, physics, or chemistry, as valid sources of
scientific fact.
More important, would you say that if a statement in these
journals or science texts contradicts the bible, then they
(the journals and texts) are not admissible as proof (in
fact, this is essentially what I am agreeing to show you).
If indeed you were to say that the bible is, for you, the
first and final authority on all matters, scientific or
otherwise, then I *cannot* ever provide you with proof that
the bible has a scientific error. Once again, this is not
because I am incapable of debate or badly qualified---
axiomatic differences places our world-views so far apart
from each other that we cannot have a productive discussion.
I am hoping that you will say that you are willing to accept
peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific texts as
containing valid statements of scientific fact.
(*) Do you agree to interpret one or more biblical verses that I
shall quote in the literal sense---i.e. they mean what they
say. There is a good reason for my asking this question,
because I have in the past provided examples of
contradictions (logical ones) to inerrantists and have them claim that I have not understood the "authorial intent" of
the relevant passages i.e. the author of the passage really
meant something else (even if that is the exact antithesis of
the literal statement) and that two or more statements that "seem" to be in contradiction are really not in
contradiction.
While it is quite true that people may not interpret
statements in any text (including the bible) correctly, there
is something deeply illogical about claiming that two
statements that are in direct contradiction with each other
are in fact not in contradiction.
Either the bible is not to be read literally, or the bible
has errors in it if interpreted literally. Insisting on both
literalism and inerrancy is an extreme position that is not
defensible.
(*) Assuming that you have agreed to both the above statements,
will you, once I show you _one_ error in the bible with
respect to scientific fact, honestly acknowledge this and say
so in `apologia-l'. In addition, do you agree to consider
with an open mind, other examples of errors and internal
contradictions in the bible that Farrell Till might send your
way.
I sincerely hope that you will answer in the affirmative to the above three questions. These affirmative answers are necessary for me to spend any time engaging in a productive debate with you.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will repeat that we cannot have a useful exchange of ideas if our axiomatic systems are at odds with one another.
When I see your reply, I will provide you with an example of a scientific error in the bible.
--Krishna