Difference between revisions of "Talk:Biblical accuracy"
From Conservapedia
(Revert troll) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:: Yes, thanks Philip.--[[User:Martib|Martib]] 11:25, 31 October 2008 (EDT) | :: Yes, thanks Philip.--[[User:Martib|Martib]] 11:25, 31 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 11:00, 14 March 2009
Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? HDCase 11:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Writing about the time that one knows is not a guarantee of being accurate.
- Many have disputed that the Bible was accurate, so Luke's accuracy is a valid point to make.
- Most if not all of the Bible was written by contemporaries. So you'd agree that the entire Bible is accurate? (I do).
- Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Is this article more about Biblical inerrancy, as opposed to accuracy? I think so, but maybe there's something here that's too subtle for me. Wouldn't be the first time! -- Martib 22:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Inerrancy is the theological concept that they Bible must be without error, being God's revelation.
- This article is about the evidence that the Bible is a very accurate historical record.
- Does that clarify it for you?
- Philip J. Rayment 02:09, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, thanks Philip.--Martib 11:25, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
