Comments on: The nature of inspiration and the purpose of Scripture http://undeception.com/the-nature-of-inspiration-and-the-purpose-of-scripture/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-nature-of-inspiration-and-the-purpose-of-scripture By faith, Abraham... Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:03:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Steve http://undeception.com/the-nature-of-inspiration-and-the-purpose-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-190 Steve Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:23:48 +0000 http://undeception.com/?p=53#comment-190 Oh come on, it's all going Blu-Ray. :) The creation science crowd are taking the bait. Materialistic empiricists and rationalists told them that the Bible <em>had</em> to address those things, and they took them at their word. Sad, really. Oh come on, it’s all going Blu-Ray. :)

The creation science crowd are taking the bait. Materialistic empiricists and rationalists told them that the Bible had to address those things, and they took them at their word. Sad, really.

]]> By: Mike Beidler http://undeception.com/the-nature-of-inspiration-and-the-purpose-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Mike Beidler Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:09:16 +0000 http://undeception.com/?p=53#comment-189 <i>we may confidently infer that the Bible has therefore taken on all the practical properties for which God ordained it. </i> Amen! That being said, I'm curious to know how groups like Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research argue that one of the Bible's purposes is to provide the reader with scientifically-accurate information that, to the original reader, would likely have boggled the mind and dismissed it as so much nonsense. Likewise, athiest Sam Harris claims that, because the Bible did not predict the advent of such fantastic inventions like rocket ships or the Internet, that the Bible is false. Interesting how the athiest and the scientific creationist can make the same error regarding the nature and purpose of Scripture. <i>I suggest further that if God had intended to convey unfiltered, unprocessed Truth, he could definitely have chosen a more sanitary (objective) vessel than literature written down by man.</i> Such as ... a DVD, perhaps? ;-) we may confidently infer that the Bible has therefore taken on all the practical properties for which God ordained it.

Amen! That being said, I’m curious to know how groups like Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research argue that one of the Bible’s purposes is to provide the reader with scientifically-accurate information that, to the original reader, would likely have boggled the mind and dismissed it as so much nonsense. Likewise, athiest Sam Harris claims that, because the Bible did not predict the advent of such fantastic inventions like rocket ships or the Internet, that the Bible is false. Interesting how the athiest and the scientific creationist can make the same error regarding the nature and purpose of Scripture.

I suggest further that if God had intended to convey unfiltered, unprocessed Truth, he could definitely have chosen a more sanitary (objective) vessel than literature written down by man.

Such as … a DVD, perhaps? ;-)

]]>