On inerrancy - and how to understand it

[agricola]

Don't assume I am backing down on the science, because I wasn't. But that is not something that belongs here or needs to be in this thread.
But E=mc(squared) which means that mass is relatable to mass times the square of the velocity of light, and the velocity of light is timexdistance, therefore mass ('the earth') is connected to velocity which is time and distance....so yes, stopping time definitely affects/is affected by, 'gravity' which is the effects of mass in space-time.

But the TOPIC (ideally anyway) is how the coc's insistance on literal inerrancy (because the coc DOES make that claim in my experience) causes problems for people who learn actual science - and math - and physics - and history - outside the coc.

Although I will certainly grant believers the leeway to believe that a 'miracle' by definition transgresses the normal laws of physics, I do think that they need not NECESSARILY do so, and most Biblical miracles in fact do not, or never to any great extent. But stopping the sun (or the earth) is beyond any minor transgression - and requiring that story be literally factual goes far beyond anything reasonable - AND it is not at all NECESSARY to the story, that the sun 'actually' stop moving.

[KLP]

Don't assume I am backing down on the science, because I wasn't. But that is not something that belongs here or needs to be in this thread.
But E=mc(squared) which means that mass is relatable to mass times the square of the velocity of light, and the velocity of light is timexdistance, therefore mass ('the earth') is connected to velocity which is time and distance....so yes, stopping time definitely affects/is affected by, 'gravity' which is the effects of mass in space-time.
....

So now we throw in speed of light...ok, but still nothing about rotation of the Earth effecting gravity of the Earth....and EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE.
Two things and then I intend to be done with this thread:
1. The notion and then assertion that rotation of the Earth drives/defines the gravity of the Earth was a misstatement and then doubled down on and defended.
2. The premise that the "laws of nature" preclude and prevent any level of supernatural intervention and disruption is only opinion.

Pressing an opinion as "beyond dispute" is in fact the very essence of this thread on inerrancy and cognitive dissonance. And it is characterized by, as was pointed out, endless defense of the indefensible and/or the marginalization of those that disagree or would dare question the premise. I am pointing out that the very nature of the opening posting on this topic of faulting "inerancy" was in fact an exercise in the very thing being faulted. It did this by including a claim that is unknowable and unprovable...and yet defined it as "beyond dispute". This is the very essence of this topic...I have not diverged from the thread topic.

[agricola]

Don't assume I am backing down on the science, because I wasn't. But that is not something that belongs here or needs to be in this thread.
But E=mc(squared) which means that mass is relatable to mass times the square of the velocity of light, and the velocity of light is timexdistance, therefore mass ('the earth') is connected to velocity which is time and distance....so yes, stopping time definitely affects/is affected by, 'gravity' which is the effects of mass in space-time.
....

So now we throw in speed of light...ok, but still nothing about rotation of the Earth effecting gravity of the Earth....and EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE.
Two things and then I intend to be done with this thread:
1. The notion and then assertion that rotation of the Earth drives/defines the gravity of the Earth was a misstatement and then doubled down on and defended.

That is not what I said - but if that is what you thought I said, then I was extremely unclear (which is certainly possible). I apologize.

2. The premise that the "laws of nature" preclude and prevent any level of supernatural intervention and disruption is only opinion.

That is not what I said EITHER, but it is somewhat close - there is some nuance to it which I think you may have missed:

a) the laws of nature were - theologically speaking - set up by God in the first place. They are therefore 'good' and natural - AND are another 'testament' to the existence and nature of God (outside the written scriptures).
b) God can, if necessary, suspend those laws - and when the laws of nature are suspended, this is called 'a miracle' - BUT
c) most miracles do not appear to suspend the laws of nature - instead, most miracles recounted are 'natural' in that they are things which can and do occur - the ones we call 'miracles' simply happen to occur at enormously convenient times and places.
d) THEREFORE, it would appear that, in most cases, 1 - God 'prefers' to use the laws of nature and does NOT in fact suspend them in order for a 'miracle' to occur and 2 - before invoking drastic alteration to the laws of nature to 'explain' a miracle, we ought to be 'conservative' and see if the miracle can be explained WITHIN those laws.

Conclusion: religious entities that teach otherwise place an undue burden on members (and society) by suspending all logic and (inferring at least) teaching that natural laws cannot be depended upon to work, at any time and any place, because 'a miracle (might have) occurred'.

Pressing an opinion as "beyond dispute" is in fact the very essence of this thread on inerrancy and cognitive dissonance. And it is characterized by, as was pointed out, endless defense of the indefensible and/or the marginalization of those that disagree or would dare question the premise. I am pointing out that the very nature of the opening posting on this topic of faulting "inerancy" was in fact an exercise in the very thing being faulted. It did this by including a claim that is unknowable and unprovable...and yet defined it as "beyond dispute". This is the very essence of this topic...I have not diverged from the thread topic.

I support that opinion (still) by pointing out that 'faith in God' and 'belief in miracles' does not have to mean that all sense and natural science need to be discarded.

'Inerrancy of the Bible' in matters of science and history in religious teaching is bad theology, since it tends to negate all normal methods by which we 'know' things that are true: the evidence of our eyes, our senses, our intelligence and our investigations of history, archeology, and the entire natural world. It therefore sets people up in a false dichotomy - either the Bible is 'right' about science and history (and therefore we have no knowledge outside it that can be relied upon, therefore say goodbye to medicine, for example, because it isn't in the Bible and we can't 'trust' science) or it is 'wrong' (and it IS wrong about cosmology, astronomy, medicine and assorted other topics) and therefore should be thrown out entirely.

Want some quotes? I have a lot of support from theologians on that. My fave is from St Augustine, though:

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

(Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Scripture, 1.19)

And then there is William of Occam -

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate.
(No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary)
- William of Occam

and from Jewish tradition - a doctor and scholar of great note - and someone appreciated greatly by, for instance, Thomas Aquinas:

For with the masses who are people of the Torah [Jewish Bible], that which is beloved to them and tasty to their folly is that they should place Torah and rational thinking as two opposite extremes, and will derive everything impossible as distinct from that which is reasonable, and they say that it is a miracle, and they flee from something being in accordance with natural law, whether something recounted from past events, with something that is in the present, or with something which is said to happen in the future. But we shall endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, leading events according to the natural order wherever possible; only with something that is clarified to be a miracle and cannot be otherwise explained at all will we say that it is a miracle.

(Maimonides, Letter Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, quoted in Slifkin, p. 109-110)

Then - not to avoid entirely the skeptic and anti-religious side:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty... I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech... I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

- H.L. Mencken

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear from the very start, what my objections actually consisted of.

[KLP]

Agri said:

"Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? .....the earth itself would have to cease rotation.... "

"...This is not really possible without a rather considerable amount of physical destruction of the planet. The planet is (demonstrably) still intact, therefore the earth's rotation has not ever suddenly stopped, then restarted, at any point in the past history of the planet. "

It is not confusion on my part and I am not sure how you could be more clear...you assert that the gravity of the Earth is dependent upon the rotation of the planet and therefore that prevents the story of Joshua. And then go on to assume that even if an interference in one law of Nature occurred then the remainder would have remained intact.

I stand by my summary:
1. The notion and then assertion that rotation of the Earth drives/defines the gravity of the Earth was a misstatement and then doubled down on and defended.
2. The premise that the "laws of nature" preclude and prevent any level of supernatural intervention and disruption is only opinion.

Now I could have been more clear on my phrase "prevent any level". I meant in #2 that the premise is that there is some level of interference which is declared to be beyond acceptance. So because you (and others) are not willing to accept some account ( in this case the story of Joshua) you come up with ways of declaring it "impossible". And then try to put the burden on others to disprove your choice to define a particular level of interference as being "too much" or "impossible". Who can define what is too much or beyond what an all powerful Creator God would or could do? Impossible to know or prove...yet it is defined as being "demonstrably" proved as true.

So I stand by summary. Assertions and opinions are being offered as "fact" and then impossible thresholds are set up as requirements just as in the religious world.

But ultimately, Agri, your argument is premised and driven by the chosen POV that the Jewish Bible account is (at best) allegorical. This is a choice and POV. It is from this POV and choice that another POV and choice (inerrancy) is being faulted or complained about. We can't know which is correct...I decided to just ask about the unfounded stuff like the rotation<->gravity<->Joshua linkage.

[teresa]

KLP

This is a Support and Agreement forum. So even if agricola said something you regard as wrong, this is not the place to discuss it. Feel free to have your say in a Differing Views forum.

agricola has been patient in explaining what she meant, but it has taken her away from the (IMO) valuable topic she started. Many folks who have left the CoC have struggled with whether the Bible message can be trusted at all, after coming to question its inerrancy.

[KLP]

KLP

This is a Support and Agreement forum. So even if agricola said something you regard as wrong, this is not the place to discuss it. Feel free to have your say in a Differing Views forum.

agricola has been patient in explaining what she meant, but it has taken her away from the (IMO) valuable topic she started. Many folks who have left the CoC have struggled with whether the Bible message can be trusted at all, after coming to question its inerrancy.

Well of course I have been patient too and yet am getting no support or agreement.

So all I did was point out the habit of overstatement on display in the OP by stating that the author's opinion was posited as "beyond dispute" and "fact". And for daring to address this overstatement I eventually get told to shut it down. Instead of just agreeing that the author was overstating his "premise" and was doing it to further his thesis, the moderator starts defending the overstatement by posting stuff about planet rotation and that the story of Joshua is impossible. And then I get told it is so blatantly obvious that Joshua is impossible that explanation is not needed "Really?" And then I get told additional science stuff about how if the planet does not rotate it effects "EVERYTHING". All I was saying was that the author overstated his opinion on something that does not even physically exists anymore. That no one knows for sure any of it, all opinions are equal but they are still opinions. Nope...that is not acceptable. Why is that so unacceptable to point out something about an article posted as an OP? sheesh...some support forum

So we are again back to the notion that these are 100% support and agreement forums...except when it is acceptable disagreement...then anything goes up to and including connecting rotation of planets to gravity to Joshua stories.

[teresa]

KLP

The way the Support and Agreement forums work, the opening poster (in this case, agricola) sets the topic for which they are looking to give or to ask for support and agreement. Subsequent posters (in this case, yourself) are NOT to ask for support and agreement for viewpoints that differ from the intent of the opening poster. Also, Support and Agreement forums are NOT the place to tell the opening poster that they are too one-sided or definite in their view. This is similar to the way non-confrontational face-to-face support groups operate.

I will edit the expectations to make that clearer.

[KLP]

Thanks. I guess I got confused when a moderator posted a topic about which they were not specifically needing support on. It seemed more like pressing a point of view rather than one asking for and needing support. At least this is how it worked in the groups I have been attended where the moderator set the topic. Thanks for clarifying, I was unaware Agricola was asking for support.