The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

| RE: “Ugh. I would avoid addressing #2 and #3 if I were in your shoes too.” I assure you, my intention is not to “avoid” anything… To the contrary, we had a lot of ground to cover from the start, and your round 3 rebuttal (intended or not) expanded the scope of the debate, requiring an immediate response. For now, I’ll just consider that comment a subtle jab—but one that really has no place in this debate. Moving on… Thanks again for your patience. Let’s first remember that the Bible authors are no different than modern authors with respect to their use of figures of speech, metaphors and literary devices. Scripture often speaks in the language of appearance/observation—without special regard to technical accuracy. And we do too. I’ll begin with the Creation Days (Genesis 1:3-5, 14-19) [1]. There are several ways to answer this depending on the hermeneutic employed… Given the space constraints, I’ll focus on just two: 1. Six-Literal Day Interpretation: On the first literal day God created space/time, the earth and light. God was the initial source of that light to prototype day and night and to establish the first day. By day four, God implemented His prototype by creating the luminaries, etc… Note: This category includes many nuanced views, from the nature of space/time during creation, to the notion that God is not subject to time though His creative work was realized in time. 2. Framework Interpretation [2]: Genesis 1 is not a simple chronology of creation… Rather, it is primarily a kairological account depicting the hierarchy of creation, culminating with the creation of man. The days of creation are a memory device—a literary framework for illustrating God’s prowess in the creation of all things (including light). This is a very popular mode of interpretation—especially, considering that the earliest Old Testament texts began as oral tradition and that Moses often made masterful use of mnemonics, often as an introductory aid to what follows in the text [3]. That is why part of the creation account is repeated in Genesis 2 (without the mnemonic). In this way, attaching qualitative descriptions of the creation account to something as engrained in human daily life as the days of the week provided a very effective way of communicating truth and preserving it intact from generation to generation. Finally, even if you regard the Bible as nothing more than a well-preserved collection of ancient literature, the notion that such a literary masterpiece could (in the span of just a few verses) contain the kind of cognitive dissonance you’re implying would seem to require the highest commitment to intellectual dishonesty or irresponsibility with respect to the handling of the text. Let’s be clear, “dubious science” is not the issue here… Rather, you use that term (quite loosely) to point to what would be a very obvious case of cognitive dissonance on the part of the author. Even the most minimally gracious approach to the text and the author would quickly render an appreciation that there is something more going on (something deeper being communicated) than a simple chronology of events. Moving on now to include the Great Flood (Genesis 6-9) [4] and Joshua’s Long Day (Joshua 10:6-15) [5]… My intent from this point forward is to show that your assertion of “dubious science” is fundamentally flawed. First, the Biblical accounts do not provide technical details describing how God accomplished these events. The authors’ focus (the point) is not scientific accuracy. It is therefore ludicrous to impose that burden upon a text that aims, primarily, to communicate the truth of God’s creative prowess: “Let there be light”; or His righteous acts of judgment: “I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh…”; or His omnipotence: “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…” We could speculate (RE: Joshua’s Long Day)… Some suggest God caused a minor pole shift sufficient to give the appearance that the sun and moon “stood still/stopped” in the sky while the Earth continued to rotate. Others believe that God simply caused the Earth to stop rotating… The first sounds more plausible (pole shifts happen naturally), while the second would seem to have globally devastating effects. Omnipotent God could have accomplished it any number of ways; from (supernaturally) manipulating the laws of physics, to (psychologically) manipulating the perceptions of the people involved. But speculating this way, whatever the case, we’d be ignoring something very important… The events were miraculous! God did it all! In general, if you want to make the claim that a Biblical account is “dubious science” because it records miraculous events as fact, you’re taking on a huge additional burden of proof: First, you’ll have to prove that either the God of the Bible does not exist. You are a self-described agnostic (from our other posts)… If you are a consistent agnostic, you will admit that you can’t meet this burden and withdraw your argument. For the sake of argument, I would contend that the God of the Bible—the One Who spoke the Universe into existence (Genesis 1) [6], (Psalm 33:6-9) [7], (John 1:1-5) [8]—if He does exist, then surely He has the knowledge and the power to do whatever He wants with His creation from beginning to end according to His purposes. Who are we (mere men) to say that the God of the Universe couldn’t possibly cause a global flood or stop the Earth and Moon and still hold everything else together in perfect harmony (Colossians 1:16-17) [9]? You said yourself, “There is no shortage of highly implausible scenarios in the Bible”… That’s what miracles are. They often defy the laws of nature. They are not normative events. How then is God subject to the charge of “dubious science”? If you say, “I charge the Bible.” Well, that option is not open to you. You can’t arbitrarily separate the two… If God is Who the Bible says He is (including its inspiration), then the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then God is Who the Bible says He is. Therefore, you also assume the burden of proving that the Bible is merely human in origin (not inspired of God)—that the Bible is not a miracle in and of itself. Conclusion: Unless you can meet these self-imposed burdens, your assertion of “dubious science” is baseless and absurd. You might just as well simplify your argument and say, “Well, the Bible contains accounts of miracles, therefore, it is obviously not inerrant”—which begs the question. That is, in fact, what you are doing. Moreover, as a consistent agnostic (“I know nothing for certain”), you must grant the possibility that the God of the Bible is Who it says He is, and if that is true, neither God nor the Biblical accounts of His miracles are subject to the charge of “dubious science”. You must concede this point. Even after extensive editing, I have no more space. I will assert a general refutation to your argument #3 (Irreconcilable discrepancies) here and clarify (if required) in the final round before my closing arguments: The Gospel accounts to which you refer provide a description of the same (or similar events) from varying perspectives and even (in some cases) slightly different timeframes around those events. None are irreconcilable. Moreover, the so-called “synoptic” Gospels are much more chronological in structure where John is more kairological and structured thematically. If all four accounts provided the same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be “collusion”! [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.equip.org... [3] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [4] http://www.biblegateway.com... [5] http://www.biblegateway.com...