Are There Errors in the Bible?

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by sdcoyote:
Pastor Larry -

I own one of those PH.D's that Charles is talking about. I have studied biology as well as astrophysics for many years. I am also a Christian as well as a member of the SBC (have been since I was 16.)

Hi sdcoyote,

What is your Ph.D. in? Where did you get it?

I can tell you with certainty that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Were you there when the Earth was created? I doubt your Ph.D. is in the sciences. Scientists generally wouldn't use "with certainty" as a proof. When it comes to the age of the earth, science is about probabilities; not certainty.

I could point to a million proofs (and I mean that literally) that the earth is billions of years old.

Go ahead and post them.

Young Earth arguments do not help the Christian cause.

This isn't the point. We aren't trying to "help the Christian cause." We are trying to love God and obey Him while understanding His Word.

Instead, it causes us to be viewed as simpletons, without reason or logic, and harms rather than helps Christian witness.

Aw, I see. So you think I should change my beliefs so unbelievers will like me and my beliefs more? Yikes.

I would implore you to go to http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml and read what Dr. Ross, (a believer in Bible inerrancy and OEC.) another astrophysisist, has written.

OEC contradicts Genesis and the fossil record. Please see my research on Genesis 1 and this subject: http://www.jcsm.org/Creation/CreationAccount.htm . There are more great links and evidences here: http://mustsee.jcsm.org , http://answersingenesis.org , and http://yecs.org .

There is no reason to believe in the false doctrine of YEC.

This is your opinion. So far, you haven't given any proof that the earth is old.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LarryN:
John, I dunno- I know of some people on here that seem to believe that there are simply two alternatives: #1. YEC, or #2. Naturalistic Evolution.

There are some, yes. But there are many more. Even among the "some", the majority of them do not question the chtistianity of tose who differ from that view.

To some, if one does not strictly adhere to YEC's 6,000-10,000 year creation date, or 24-hour, literal "days"- their salvation comes into question.

Thankfully, however, those are a scant few. The majority who ascribe to a literal YEC 6k view are respectful of those who differ, and are not questioning the salvation of others. One should paint them with the same brush as the extremists who do question others' salvation almost routinely.

Anyhoo, this thread is going off in a direction which is waaaayy off topic, so I think it would be good if we could reel it in a bit.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Larry,

"I have no problem saying taht there are apparent inconsistencies and apparent conflicts. BUt I would emphasize the word apparent. Since we are not omniscient, we should assume that we simply do not know enough. If we had all the facts, there would be no contradictions or inconsistencies. But again, we cannot assume our knowledge is that big."

This is quite reasonable. But I think many of us would disagree with the statement in boldface. If we think we don't know enough we should learn more! "Science" is nothing more than observation of what's around us! I can't figure out where it gets a bad rap as something actively evil.

If there is an apparent inconsistency we should find out what's up! Maybe it's a manuscript copying error (like the age of Ahaziah) or maybe it's a passage that really wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I have yet to see one solid reason to abandon the normal reading of the Bible.

How is YOUR reading more normal than another? Why would some passages written 3000-4000 years by those who thought differently than we do be MOST PROPERLY READ in 20th century western context?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

May I first say that I admire the work you have done - I'm sure it has helped and will help alot of people.

I do have a few problems with the way you present things however. I realize that there are some flaws in nearly every major "scientific theory". You probably know some of these specifically better than I. I think that those without advanced degrees in the natural sciences tend to not fully grasp all the facets of the various theories. When something does not turn out exactly as planned, like the random generation of chiral centers, galaxy movement, certain aspects of carbon 14, speed of light etc. - creationists jump up and say, "see it all falls apart" - when in fact the majority of applications of a given theory still hold true.

Just some basic things that make one wonder...

We see stars far, far away - just the fact that we see them proves that enough time has passed for their light to reach us.

What about all the rock formations and the dating thereof?

If your reading of the scientific facts leads you to believe that the idea of a young earth is much more likely then (no offense meant) I have to question your knowledge and understanding of those facts.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I guess God was not strong enough to allow us to see the light of the stars as soon as they were created?

 

[Pastor Larry]

PL: Since we are not omniscient, we should assume that we simply do not know enough. If we had all the facts, there would be no contradictions or inconsistencies. But again, we cannot assume our knowledge is that big."

... But I think many of us would disagree with the statement in boldface. If we think we don't know enough we should learn more! "Science" is nothing more than observation of what's around us! I can't figure out where it gets a bad rap as something actively evil.

First, what exactly are you disagreeing. I assume you are not disagreeing with us not being omniscient. Why would you disagree that if we knew everything there would be no contradiction? Isn't that a rather large jump?

As for science, it is good to hear you say that it is nothing more than observation of what's around us. Doesn't that automatically take origins out of the realm of science? I think it does based on that very reason. OEC is a hypothesis; YEC is a hypothesis. The question is which better fits with the facts of known science and the text of Scripture. I would argue that YEC does.

If there is an apparent inconsistency we should find out what's up! Maybe it's a manuscript copying error (like the age of Ahaziah) or maybe it's a passage that really wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I agree ... but those are both fairly easily discernable from the text and neither is the problem in Gen 1.

I have yet to see one solid reason to abandon the normal reading of the Bible.

Again, I agree ... which is why I am a YEC

How is YOUR reading more normal than another?

Because it treats the text as normal language, not hypothesizing about genres to fit a presupposition.

Why would some passages written 3000-4000 years by those who thought differently than we do be MOST PROPERLY READ in 20th century western context?

Because God's communication is timeless and there is nothing in the creation account to suggest anything but a literal interpretation of the Gen 1 passage. There are quite certainly figurative passages in Scripture. But there are clear reasons to take them as such and none of the reasons appear in Gen 1. The figurative interpretation of Gen 1 is the need to find a way for something else to co-exist (old earth). I would say that something is unnecessary.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Jason,

May I first say that I admire the work you have done - I'm sure it has helped and will help alot of people.

Thanks Charles. I'm working hard to share the truth with those in need. Glory to our Lord.

I do have a few problems with the way you present things however. I realize that there are some flaws in nearly every major "scientific theory". You probably know some of these specifically better than I. I think that those without advanced degrees in the natural sciences tend to not fully grasp all the facets of the various theories. When something does not turn out exactly as planned, like the random generation of chiral centers, galaxy movement, certain aspects of carbon 14, speed of light etc. - creationists jump up and say, "see it all falls apart" - when in fact the majority of applications of a given theory still hold true.

I'm not sure what you meant by all of that. Essentially, you give some bulletin points. What did you mean by them, though? If you want to give an argument for OEC, then go ahead. However, a brief list of a few things isn't an argument, so I don't know if that was your intent or not. And when I say "argument" I don't mean it like two people arguing. I mean it in terms of a discussion.

Just some basic things that make one wonder...

We see stars far, far away - just the fact that we see them proves that enough time has passed for their light to reach us.

Time is not a constant. There is good evidence that the speed of light has changed. Didn't got stretch the universe? Barry Setterfield has some great information on this theory. Google him and see or go to http://www.setterfield.org .

What about all the rock formations and the dating thereof?

It seems that you are assuming that OEC or secular evolutionism is correct. I don't make that assumption. Therefore, when you say, "What about all the rock formations and the dating thereof?" it doesn't make sense to me. What about it?

In short, the dating methods used by secular evolutionists do not consider a world wide flood with cataclysmic events (e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.). These things could have easily contaminated long earth dates that rely on all things remaining constant.

If your reading of the scientific facts leads you to believe that the idea of a young earth is much more likely then (no offense meant) I have to question your knowledge and understanding of those facts.

Feel free to question my knowledge and understand. The feeling is mutual. If you want to present a case for OEC, I'm happy to read it and respond.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

For me to present a case for OEC is probably not the point of this thread - maybe I'll start another one for this!

I am familiar with Barry Setterfield's arguments. They are interesting but...
I won't critique him since I am not an astronomer or physicist - but they seem rather far-fetched.

I guess what I'm saying is that based on my observation of the facts YEC seems extraordinarily unlikely. All of our accepted "theories" are just that (theories) and there are some things that don't quite line up. But that doesn't diminsh the fact that I find the overwhelming majority of evidence in favor of OEC. The vast majority of natural scientists would agree with this - although I acknowledge that some do not.

This, combined with what I know about semitic epic and grammar, lead me to think that the Genesis account was not meant to be a history-book account of the sequence of creation.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Larry,

What I would call the "Josh McDowell approach" is exactly what Jason was doing with the scarlet and purple robe, or Askjo with the KJV recording of the ages of Ahaziah - namely trying to find a "least common denominator" explanation in which both can be literally true, no matter how unlikely that explanation REALLY is.

Regarding the "errors" - well....

There ARE places where the bible says different things! Again, I don't have a problem with it and I think these are understandable given that God chose to transmit His message through fallible humans. I don't believe that THESE THINGS cause the bible to be "in error".

If, however, we simply teach everyone to harmonize it all there will be some who are left asking if all of our beliefs are founded on this type of tenuous conclusion!!

Now I'm not advocating teaching advanced theology in VBS! But I am saying that we must be prepared to deal with the tough questions when they come. You need to realize (as you probably do) that not everyone's mind is the same; some people just are inquisitive by their natures.

Take the ages of the patriarchs for example. I've heard the explanation of the earth losing its "water canopy" and thus UV radiation caused our lifespan to be limited to 120 years. If this explanation works for someone then fine! Let him/her be at ease! But there will be some who say, "well that doesn't make good sense; our bodies DNA repair and apoptotic genes aren't able to deal with 800 years, especially with questionable nutrition and no medical care..."

Now God could have simply changed how long the body lasts - or the OT writers could have been using some of the middle eastern tendencies to be loose and sometimes exaggerative with age.

What I'm saying is that the bible IS what it IS. God didn't see fit to give us the bible in stone tablets from his own finger - as such we have to deal with its human component. And there will be some students who see through the "harmonized" answers and recognize that they are attempts to make something fit, even if it doesn't seem to. We must be prepared to discuss with them some of the more difficult questions - and admit that we don't have all the answers.

I remember an ex brother-in-law (who was extraordinarily bright and naturally inquisitive) who attended a certain baptist university in Lynchburg and got a 4.0 and was valedictorian of his class. Later he lost his faith and ceased to believe, citing that one day he simply realized that he couldn't "believe the stuff anymore" He said that he realized that the foundations of our Christianity are intellectually dishonest.

Of course his "apostasy" is his own fault. But I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if someone had actually discussed things with him when he had questions instead of telling him,"don't dwell on that, the devil will get to you!"

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the small inconsistencies in the bible - they are the product of its human transmission. They do not alter God's message to us.

Dr. Meadows,

Thank you so very much for this outstanding post! The Josh McDowell approach to the Bible was a source of confusion and doubt for me in the late 1970’s. Had I not already had a solid education in the Bible, I believe that Josh McDowell probably would have persuaded me that Christianity is intellectually dishonest and that the Bible is a book for fools. Harold Lindsell and The Battle for the Bible was another hurdle for me to get past. Scholarship that is so shallow that it gives every sign of being dishonest does not honor God and is a major stumbling block for those persons for whom honesty and integrity and thoroughness are prerequisites for believability.

 

[Craigbythesea]

We have an inerrant message and inerrant autographs. You surely haven't proven otherwise.

This is nothing more than your personal opinion, and a very stifling opinion at that. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ERROR FREE!!! Anyone who believes every detail in the Bible is true just because they were told by some man or woman that every detail in the Bible is true is a fool’s fool. I do not believe that the Bible is true because someone told me that it is; I believe that the Bible is true because I have applied it to my life and found it to be true.

I also believe that the Bible is because of the men who wrote it. Paul and Luke are not just names on pages in the Bible; Paul and Luke are dear brothers in Christ whom I know better than my flesh and blood brothers. I know them to be men of integrity that I can and do trust with my life. The humanness and simplicity of Mark pops right out of the page. His Gospel may not be 100% accurate, but when compared with the gospels of Matthew and Luke, I can see that he honestly wrote the facts as he saw them. The Epistle of James meshes perfectly with the James that Luke introduced me to in the Book of Acts. Does his theology mesh 100% with Paul’s theology? I believe that God would have us to answer such questions not only honestly, but with thoroughness and integrity. The Bible does not have to be humanly perfect to be divinely perfect. God is the measure of truth, not mortal men.

 

[Craigbythesea]

God said the Bible is his word;

If God said such a thing, He certainly didn’t say it in the Bible!

God said he cannot lie.

I suppose that this is one possible, but far-reaching, interpretation.

Why is it too much to ask that we believe that God indeed didn't lie?
[/QUOTE]

Let’s first read the Bible and see what it does and does not say! When people say that God promised to do something that He did not promise to, and did not do, they make Him out to be a liar. I rather doubt that God is especially pleased by such behavior!

 

[Craigbythesea]

There is simply no reason to posit errors in the text of Scripture. And we certainly cannot separate our faith from this issue. If the Bible came from God, then it can have no errors, since God cannot lie. If there are errors (lies) in teh Bible, then it did not come from God, and we are left up to our own minds to determine what is "truth" and what is not. That is a philosophically and theologically indefensible position.

I can not help but get highly offended when I read stuff like this on a Christian message board. God is not an action figure that one can purchase at K-Mart and play with in the sandbox. It staggers my mind how anyone could speak so presumptuously about God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Most of the books (and websites) I've read which are attemping to "disprove" science are pretty weak in their understanding of the "science" side of things.

I have had several university friends who teach evolutionary biology, and from their point of view, Christians are Christians ONLY because they do not know any better! They have seen the junk put out by the Institute for Creation Research, and if anything is a tool of the devil to keep these men from coming to Christ, it is this junk, for it betrays the gross incompetence of the so-called scientists who write the junk.

I do not believe that the current state of scientific evidence supports the theory that man evolved from a pre-human organism, but the Institute for Creation Research certainly had nothing to do with that opinion. The Bible is not a text-book on the origin of man, and Christians, unless they are genuine biologists, need to concern themselves with the origin of sin and the atonement for sin rather than with physical anthropology less they continue to make fools of themselves and bring reproach not only upon themselves, but upon the Bible and the God who gave us the Bible.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Second, there are numberous well credentialed PhDs who are young earth creationists and with good reason.

No, there are only a few.

 

[Craigbythesea]

This isn't the point. We aren't trying to "help the Christian cause." We are trying to love God and obey Him while understanding His Word.

Maybe furthering the Kingdom of God is not important to you, but it is to me, and I suspect that is important to God as well

 

[Craigbythesea]

This is your opinion. So far, you haven't given any proof that the earth is old.

He doesn't have to. Any university worthy of the designation has thousands of volumes in its library that document that the earth is billions of years old. And besides the biology, geology, astrophyics, astronomy, molecular chemisty, etc., who wants to believe that God created the earth with trillions of fossils to fool us!

 

[Craigbythesea]

What is your Ph.D. in? Where did you get it?

Are you not the guy who accused me in another thread of derailing the thread by asking you a very similar question? Yes, you are the man!

 

[Craigbythesea]

This, combined with what I know about semitic epic and grammar, lead me to think that the Genesis account was not meant to be a history-book account of the sequence of creation.

What could possibly be more obvious about this passage of scripture?

Every single day, all over the earth, there are very foolish people saying something like this:

“If the scientists are right, then the Bible is a book of lies.”

And every single day the scientists are finding more and more evidence that they are right. Yes, there are Christian weirdoes who find “fault” in scientific data that they do not understand or comprehend the significance of, but nonetheless the scientists are finding more and more evidence that they are right, and just about every kid in school knows that, so he is hearing from the Christians themselves that “the Bible is a book of lies.”

How could this possibly be anything other than a ministry Satan?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Whether or not there are errors in the Bible is partially a matter of perspective, but there can be NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that there are errors in understanding the Bible. There are many people who post to this message board who have never bothered to use so much as a basic Bible dictionary. If you really believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, why don’t you bother to study it as such? Why do you sit in front of your TV and watch trash when you could be learning the languages in which God gave the Bible to us? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD? If you did, your life would surely show it.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Craig,

"The Bible is not a text-book on the origin of man, and Christians, unless they are genuine biologists, need to concern themselves with the origin of sin and the atonement for sin rather than with physical anthropology..."

Very nicely said!