What do you mean by "divine intervention in the course of Nature [miracles]". When is it okay, according to you, to appeal to miracle to resolve a contradiction between the bible and scientific fact.
If you simply say "that was a miracle wrought by god" to explain each and every scientific error in the bible, then I am not prepared to spend any time providing you with examples. Once again, this is because your position is not amenable to debate. Please provide me with the specific conditions when you will invoke this "miracle" argument.
Secondly, I am rather amused that you consider evolution to be a theory, as opposed to FACT. It is also amusing to see that you consider carbon-14 dating to be a widely controversial and biased method of dating in the world scientific community. While I accept that radiocarbon dating works best for age ranges of thousands to tens of thousands of years, I am not aware that there is any controversy about such legitimate uses in the scientific community. Perhaps you can cite references to articles in current peer-reviewed reputable, scientific journals that question the validity of radiocarbon dating.
:
: >(*) 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.
: >
:
: VERY IMPORTANT...
: I only translate the Bible (all 66 books) in one way. The
: "Historical-Grammatical" method. This is classical translation of the
: Bible. In a nutshell, the HG method allows for hyperbole, metaphor, and
: other literary nuances within the Literal translation of the Bible text,
: based solely on the original language and culture in context. For
: instance, If we read something like " ...And on the 8th day, it was raining
: cats and dogs..." I would expect you to allow for metaphor in the writing
: and not hold literally that felines and canines were materializing in the
: atmosphere (around dust particles) and falling when the temperature and
: atmosphere could no longer support them. QUESTION: I notice in the 5th line
: of the first paragraph in this (*) above you state " contradictions." Let us
: be clear...are you focusing on Scientific Error of the Bible or supposed
: Contradictions of the Bible? Is the argument in the original text or the
: current english translations? I am unclear.
:
I am willing to accept literary nuances, but only upto a certain extent. Since it is difficult to talk abstractly about literary nuances without specific examples, let me then ask you this:
Do you accept the King James version of the bible to represent a valid literal "Historical-Grammatical" translation of the bible? Specifically, are the English words in the KJV accurate literal translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words?
As to my use of the word "contradictions", it was in the context of an example of the kinds of "explanations" given by inerrantists to explain biblical contradictions. I will give you an example of a scientific error in the bible---which then becomes a contradiction between science and the bible.
:
: >(*) 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.
: >
:
: Are you asking me NOT to offer you explanation or defense, but simply accept
: anything you mail to me as irrefutable?? NO. I do not agree with this (*)
: as currently written. I would however agree that if I could not find any
: defense within the bounds of what I have defined above then I will "honestly
: acknowledge in 'apologia-l'."
:
I am certainly not asking you to accept whatever I say without defense. And thank you for agreeing to acknowledge this debate on apologia-l. I will also request you to send a copy of all your messages to `errancy@freethought.tamu.edu' (and/or subscribe to the list and send all your responses to the subscribers of the list).
I am looking forward to your responses on:
* the scope of "miracles". * the accuracy of the KJV.
and optionally on:
* scientific reasons why carbon-14 dating is controversial.
--Krishna