Do you hold the Bible as Inerrant/inspired/infallible?

[Thinkingstuff]

When one suggest that the scriptures are inerrant scientifically[/qquote]

It is not what they imply.






Who has suggested this?

At the begining of the thread when Yeshua1 said

Inerrant means that there are NO errors within the bible, either historical/scienctific/spiritual...

I think he's changed his position a little since this post.

 

[Revmitchell]

At the begining of the thread when Yeshua1 said I think he's changed his position a little since this post.

That is not what he said suggests.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is not what he said suggests.

That is how I read it. I may be mistaken, but when he says there are no scientific errors in the bible what am I to infer? That the bible isn't mistaken about its miscalculation of pi? What do you think he is suggesting?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is how I read it. I may be mistaken, but when he says there are no scientific errors in the bible what am I to infer? That the bible isn't mistaken about its miscalculation of pi? What do you think he is suggesting?

That in ALL areas that it addresses, once one properily intrepretes it based upon style/genre/contex/syntax/grammar etc that that are NO errors/mistakes in the originals, and that our current Bibles are essentially so close to thm they can be seen as being infallible inspired revelation, ONLY mistakes in them due to copying mistakes or our misunderstandings of what text said!

 

[Revmitchell]

That is how I read it. I may be mistaken, but when he says there are no scientific errors in the bible what am I to infer? That the bible isn't mistaken about its miscalculation of pi? What do you think he is suggesting?

You need to go back and respond to what i actually responded to. You are confused.

and the Bible is not wrong when it speaks on scientific things.

 

[billwald]

Exactly what is a "scientific thing?"

 

[billwald]

Does anyone on BB talk about sun rise rising in the east?? Does the sun rise? You all should call it "sun appearance" and sun disappearance?"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You need to go back and respond to what i actually responded to. You are confused.

and the Bible is not wrong when it speaks on scientific things.

Its very possible that I am confused. I'll take a look.

However, rev the bible is not wrong when it says pi = 3.0? Because thats what it says and in the context of that passage it is being specific or scientific about the matter.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Exactly what is a "scientific thing?"

You actually make a good point. But I'm referring to quantifiable data in regards to mechanations of how things are. Thus as one example out of many thus when one speaks of the value of pi it should be 3.14 or expanded out to 3.141592 and since we are speaking of God who set the value of pi we can expect him to further expand it to at least 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
58209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
44288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091
45648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
72458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436
78925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094
33057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548
07446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912
98336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798
60943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132
00056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872
14684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
42019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960
51870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859
50244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881
71010003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303
59825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778
18577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989...
when he speaks of it scientifically. The bible actually does speak of pi scientifically in the bible (quantifiable data in regards to the mechanations of how things are) thus 1 Kings 7:26-26 23 Then

he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. 24 Under its brim were gourds, for ten cubits, compassing the sea all around. The gourds were in two rows, cast with it when it was cast. 25 It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear parts were inward. 26 Its thickness was a handbreadth,[a] and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It held two thousand baths

. we see the bible being very specific about measurements (scientific). and when it comes to the circumference of the circle the bible gets it wrong. However, My proposition is that when we consider the scriptures their focus isn't on science but on God revealing himself, his plan, and our salvation to us. So God doesn't have to be exacting when it comes to science.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Does anyone on BB talk about sun rise rising in the east?? Does the sun rise? You all should call it "sun appearance" and sun disappearance?"

But see thats my point. Observationally we see the sun "rise" and "set" from our perspective but is that what is actually happening? No. The sun is not moving around the earth but the earth is rotating on its axis giving us the impression of the movement of the sun accross the sky. The so observationally it may be true but that is not what is really going on. So in that sense the bible recorded the true observation of the sun as seen by man. But it didn't record at all the actual opperation of it. That is what I mean by the bible can't be taken as a science book. That doesn't mean it doesn't provide some insites into science for instance using the same example we observationally see the sun moving accross the sky whether it is the earth or the sun we know something is in motion.

 

[DHK]

But see thats my point. Observationally we see the sun "rise" and "set" from our perspective but is that what is actually happening? No. The sun is not moving around the earth but the earth is rotating on its axis giving us the impression of the movement of the sun accross the sky. The so observationally it may be true but that is not what is really going on. So in that sense the bible recorded the true observation of the sun as seen by man. But it didn't record at all the actual opperation of it. That is what I mean by the bible can't be taken as a science book. That doesn't mean it doesn't provide some insites into science for instance using the same example we observationally see the sun moving accross the sky whether it is the earth or the sun we know something is in motion.

In the last two points please observe a couple of points:
First, when I look up the forecast for the day, the scientific data given states that

Sunrise: 7:41 Sunset: 19:03

It does not define it according to the earth rotating on its axis. It uses the same words the Bible uses. Is our modern scientific forecast terminology now in question? Do you question it also? Doesn't some common sense here prevail?

Secondly, The diameter was off by one cubit. In the Bible you will find many things that are rounded up or down. It is not a mistake. We all do the same thing. If my wife sees a pound of coffee, and asks me the price of it. The sticker says $3.99. I will tell her $4.00. If the time is 10:58 a.m., I will tell her it is eleven. We often round things up or down. Why would we criticize the authors of the Bible for the same things that we do? Does that not make us hypocrites?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In the last two points please observe a couple of points:
First, when I look up the forecast for the day, the scientific data given states that
It does not define it according to the earth rotating on its axis. It uses the same words the Bible uses. Is our modern scientific forecast terminology now in question? Do you question it also? Doesn't some common sense here prevail?

Secondly, The diameter was off by one cubit. In the Bible you will find many things that are rounded up or down. It is not a mistake. We all do the same thing. If my wife sees a pound of coffee, and asks me the price of it. The sticker says $3.99. I will tell her $4.00. If the time is 10:58 a.m., I will tell her it is eleven. We often round things up or down. Why would we criticize the authors of the Bible for the same things that we do? Does that not make us hypocrites?

I'm not critizing the authors of the bible. But I'm doing what you just did supply that niether they nor us when we "round up or down" or make generalizations about something can't be taken scientifically about those topics. Note my wife never said insect have 4 legs nor did she say birds have 4 legs nor does she classify a bat as a bird. We come from a knowledge base that quickly understands we are not being exacting, scientific, or even necisarily literal when we generalize or use colorful descriptive language to relay a message that isn't reliant on "scientific data". Thus when you say the sun rises I intuitively know by patern of speach that your are refering to the phenominon that is observed as the sun rising when in fact the earth has turned torwars the sun. I don't then try to make out of your statement a "scientific truth". However, that is often done with the bible by many people. I can't tell you the number of missionary kids when I was in Africa who told me that men had one less rib than women. Not that the bible teaches that as the event is particular to Adam and Eve but how by inference attempting to use the bible as a scientific commentator when it is not they made that error. And still by rounding a number doesn't make the rounded number any more a true circumferance than the actual circumferance. Its still not correct. And considering the technology of that day and the exactness of the calculations which built the Pyramids and the Acropolis they could have determine pi to its correct value.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not critizing the authors of the bible. But I'm doing what you just did supply that niether they nor us when we "round up or down" or make generalizations about something can't be taken scientifically about those topics. Note my wife never said insect have 4 legs nor did she say birds have 4 legs nor does she classify a bat as a bird. We come from a knowledge base that quickly understands we are not being exacting, scientific, or even necisarily literal when we generalize or use colorful descriptive language to relay a message that isn't reliant on "scientific data". Thus when you say the sun rises I intuitively know by patern of speach that your are refering to the phenominon that is observed as the sun rising when in fact the earth has turned torwars the sun. I don't then try to make out of your statement a "scientific truth". However, that is often done with the bible by many people. I can't tell you the number of missionary kids when I was in Africa who told me that men had one less rib than women. Not that the bible teaches that as the event is particular to Adam and Eve but how by inference attempting to use the bible as a scientific commentator when it is not they made that error. And still by rounding a number doesn't make the rounded number any more a true circumferance than the actual circumferance. Its still not correct. And considering the technology of that day and the exactness of the calculations which built the Pyramids and the Acropolis they could have determine pi to its correct value.

So how do you see the Bible ?

Doesn't the vatcian see it as being inspired as to spiritual matters, but can have mistake sin history/science, as the Pope saw Evolution as a "proven fact?"

 

[evangelist-7]

IMO, our Scriptures were generally inspired by the Lord God Almighty.

But, considering man's fallen nature, and his ineptitude, and his God-given free-will,
our Scriptures have not arrived to us anywhere near perfect.

However, God has ensured that the major doctrines have been preserved.

But, even if this is not the case ... no problem ...

WE ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE TO BE OBEDIENT TO WHAT WE HAVE IN OUT HOT LITTLE HANDS.

How could it be any other way?
.

 

[Yeshua1]

IMO, our Scriptures were generally inspired by the Lord God Almighty.

But, considering man's fallen nature, and his ineptitude, and his God-given free-will,
our Scriptures have not arrived to us anywhere near perfect.

However, God has ensured that the major doctrines have been preserved.

But, even if this is not the case ... no problem ...

WE ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE TO BE OBEDIENT TO WHAT WE HAVE IN OUT HOT LITTLE HANDS.

How could it be any other way?
.

you believe that God could not give us a perfect scripture than?

 

[DHK]

I'm not critizing the authors of the bible. But I'm doing what you just did supply that niether they nor us when we "round up or down" or make generalizations about something can't be taken scientifically about those topics. Note my wife never said insect have 4 legs nor did she say birds have 4 legs nor does she classify a bat as a bird. We come from a knowledge base that quickly understands we are not being exacting, scientific, or even necisarily literal when we generalize or use colorful descriptive language to relay a message that isn't reliant on "scientific data". Thus when you say the sun rises I intuitively know by patern of speach that your are refering to the phenominon that is observed as the sun rising when in fact the earth has turned torwars the sun. I don't then try to make out of your statement a "scientific truth". However, that is often done with the bible by many people. I can't tell you the number of missionary kids when I was in Africa who told me that men had one less rib than women. Not that the bible teaches that as the event is particular to Adam and Eve but how by inference attempting to use the bible as a scientific commentator when it is not they made that error. And still by rounding a number doesn't make the rounded number any more a true circumferance than the actual circumferance. Its still not correct. And considering the technology of that day and the exactness of the calculations which built the Pyramids and the Acropolis they could have determine pi to its correct value.

Almost all the passages you are referring to are from the OT. Then you are taking our modern day science, such as taxonomy, and juxtaposing it upon a system that was mostly written ca. 3,500 years ago, but in the very least the OT was completed by 400 B.C. However it was Moses that lived long before that, that penned the Pentateuch where most of these references are coming from. Their taxonomy was different then ours, but not necessarily wrong. Their "kinds" of Genesis one, do not match up point for point with our "genus", or exactly to any other category. God classified them according to his own system, not according to man's system. It is not fair to impose man's system on God's system, and then call God's system wrong because you are using man's system to measure it by. Both systems can be right to some extent. It may be just a different way of looking at it.

When the KJV came to the word "insect" what on earth did Moses see, seeing there was no such thing. The English language wasn't in existence. Such nomenclature did not exist. They saw creeping things, the Bible says. And in that broad category in Genesis one, were included the insects that we know today, plus some other critters.

Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Barnes:
Legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth - The families of the Saltatoria, of which the common cricket, the common grasshopper, and the migratory locust, may be taken as types.

Locust: "A winged creeping thing two or more inches long. It has six legs, the hindmost pair used for springing...It was ceremonially clean. The flesh portion was roasted and eaten. It was eaten by John the Baptist and is still used for food." (Analytical Bible dictionary)
--It seems that they didn't count the "jumping legs" or feet.

They knew what they were talking about. Their system was different. You cannot impose a modern day taxonomy system that was invented just a few years ago (relatively speaking) onto a system that was being used three and a half thousand years ago.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So how do you see the Bible ?

Doesn't the vatcian see it as being inspired as to spiritual matters, but can have mistake sin history/science, as the Pope saw Evolution as a "proven fact?"

No, that is a mischaracterization of how Catholics view scripture. We hold the same three truths you hold to but view the meaning slightly different than you supposes. Catholics understand the bible isn't a singular book. Rather it is a library of books that tell the story of salvation. Depending on the type of literature or genre of literature in the bible determines how we understand what is being said in that particular books. Historical books are to be taken as history. Apocalyptic books are taken as apocalyptic heavy with symbolism, so on and so forth. Depending on what genre you are talking about determines how that liturature is to be viewed and certain genre types don't require scientific truths but rely on symbolism such as the apocalypse.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is a mischaracterization of how Catholics view scripture. We hold the same three truths you hold to but view the meaning slightly different than you supposes. Catholics understand the bible isn't a singular book. Rather it is a library of books that tell the story of salvation. Depending on the type of literature or genre of literature in the bible determines how we understand what is being said in that particular books. Historical books are to be taken as history. Apocalyptic books are taken as apocalyptic heavy with symbolism, so on and so forth. Depending on what genre you are talking about determines how that liturature is to be viewed and certain genre types don't require scientific truths but rely on symbolism such as the apocalypse.

But the RCC view is that the Bible is NOT fully infallible/inerrant as say a Fundamentalist baptist does, correct, more of a "limited" view?

 

[evangelist-7]

you believe that God could not give us a perfect scripture than?

If He were the One writing it (like He wrote the Ten Commandments), then of course, yes He could.

All of the Scriptures were merely INSPIRED by the Almighty, not written by Him.

The contradictions amongst the gospel writers alone prove the NT is not perfectly accurate.
These 4 wrote their recollections approx. 50 years after the events happened,
and approx. 20 years after Paul wrote his epistles.

However, the Scriptures have always been plenty good enough for God's purposes!
.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But the RCC view is that the Bible is NOT fully infallible/inerrant as say a Fundamentalist baptist does, correct, more of a "limited" view?

Catholics theologians have Differing views however, what has been consitently asserted is

The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."
- Vatican I

and

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican." - pope leo xiii

and

"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error." - pope pius xii

With this in mind Catholics cannot believe in error being contained in the scripture.

Therefore regonizing that in literary respects that as DHK suggested that for instance when referrencing pi the bible may have rounded therefore it is a true statement but it isn't exacting. And DHK is right that their systems were different than ours and must be taken into account. However, that being said recognizing this is the case we cannot therefore make assumptions to our view of emperical collection. Therefore where exacting isn't called for neither should it be expected. The problem is when exacting is expected when it wasn't suggested in the first place. In a literary fiction (for instance the parables) we cannot assume what is meant is literal. However, people not being able to distinguish literary genre may well impose a literalistic interpretation when only a theological point is being made.