Difference between revisions of "Talk:Biblical accuracy"
From Conservapedia
(That's not always a given.) |
(accuracy or inerrancy?) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT) | : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 22:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:51, October 31, 2008
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)
