To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

Bill,

Several answers!

For one I'm not an necessarily an evolutionist.

It's not that I don't see the creationist viewpoint. I'm pretty well familiar with it. My problem with it is that creationists (as a whole) tend to START with a belief in a literal six days and then look for ways to prove it scientifically or archeologically. In most cases these arguments are not on the same page as the opinions of mainstream science.

I don't have any problem with the creationist view per se - but most arguments that are marshalled to support it generally have some holes - since the arguments were usually tailored specifically to prove the point, and are quite biased to start with.

 

My problem with evolution is similar.

They START with a belief that everything that exists must have a naturalistic explanation thne look for ways to prove it scientifically or archeologically.

Nor is the funding used to come up with them. This may seem like just an excuse but be realistic. Billions of public and private dollars have been applied to the attempt to prove evolution... and all we have is a theory that governs explanations rather than being derived from the facts. Evolution is ultimately uses circular reasoning. It is simply so deeply inbedded that many fail to realize it.

And you don't find that with evolutionists? I do.

In fact, it is their hypocrisy in making charges like the one implied in your post that convinces me that they aren't being completely honest with themselves.

Evolution is an idea tailored to produce a result in agreement with an unproven philosophical premise. Even folks here, evade the issue of evolution's premises. The fact that the explanations for events sound much more technical and scientific than those provided by creationists is not an evidence that they are correct.

I would like to ask a question of you:

Given these things, why do you think evolutionists are reasonable to begin with naturalism while creationists are unreasonable for starting with the notion that God spoke to Moses in a literal sense?

 

I'm trying to figure out when exactly the topic of the OP turned into a C/E debate...

 

Are you kidding?

Every thread on this board can be turned into a debate on either evolution, Bible versions, Calvinism, or abortion.

 

You forgot premillenialism.

 

BTW, I am absolutely right on all of these issues...

 

You too, huh?

 

Scott,

All three of your points are quite reasonable.

Yes evolutionists are biased.

I consider myself a conservative Christian as well as one who has been formally trained in science. Comparing the two arguments I see very little that would make me, in an unbiased manner (if that's even possible), think that a young earth is more likely.

Now that's just my opinion.

And it isn't belief in a young earth that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is so many of the arguments (many but not all of which are advanced by apologists without real scientific knowledge) are so unconvincing!

And Scott, when I was first saved I decided to leave my evolutionist camp and go to literal 6 day creationism. I read and read and read. But try as I might I could not find any compelling arguments. Now I'll make the distinction here that I do not support total evolution - but I do support an old earth!

I think to someone who is searching the creationist arguments can be dangerous! Many of these books you get at the Family Bookstore supposedly refuting evolution are written by morons (albeit well-meaning ones). For a college student who has heard his professor say that ALL the Christians are idiots - if he reads these books looking for real scholarship on the issue - will he then say, "Oh no my professor was right. Christians really are just believing lies."

This can be avoided by always being intellectually honest. Just because science supports a young earth so far that doesn't mean you have to believe it. But don't use wrong arguments just to somehow make the earth look young!

 

My main reason for not believing in evolution, any sort of compromise, or OE is simply that after reading conjecture from all sides I went back to Genesis 1 and it still says God did it in 6 days (morning and evening). I know to someone trained in evolutionary thought this doesn't sound rational but it is.

No one on either side presents a perfect, irrefutable argument. You note the weaknesses in creationists arguments. OK with me. I, even being a layman, note the weaknesses in many evolutionists arguments just because of the way they are constructed. They attempt to gloss over assumptions but if you have a critical eye those assumptions are always there.

I think you might be more impressed with creationists if it were actually a fair fight. That's why I think it is important to bring intelligent design theories into academia. Fund various theories and see who comes up with the most convincing evidence.

Right now your have thousands of people and millions of dollars dedicated to proving evolution true. Creationists are vastly out numbered and out financed. How can you expect them to be as impressive?

True. But would you acknowledge the same about evolution's arguments? Arguments that are taught as the only valid possibility in our public school classrooms? Up until just recently long debunked supposed human ancestors still appeared in text books. The discovery of Lucy was widely publicized. The info that the soil used for dating this find came from some distance away was not.

How many text books include the very weak evolution of the horse progression? How many acknowledge that radioisotope dating is only accurate to a few thousand years? How many acknowledge that dating methods for evolution are based on assumptions and ultimately circular reasoning?

There are many more problems with evolution that are never discussed or revealed to impressionable young people. This doesn't have to be an inclusion of creationism... it should be obvious though that we should not leave students with the impression that evolution is more certain than it actually is. None the less, a science teacher in Minnesota was fired a couple of years back for pointing out the weaknesses in the theory of evolution and refusing to stop. Why should critical thought not be encouraged about a scientific theory?

Or they will say "Oh no, the Christians are right. My professor was treating assumptions as if they were facts."

Some creation books and teachers are weak. Some are not. In fact, some ask questions that evolutionists would much rather avoid than answer.

I agree. But that should be a two way street. My honest observation having looked at this issue for awhile now is that evolutionists are more sophisticated in their presentations but have no more real proof than creationists.

They do have something very important though. They have control- of schools, public funding, publications, media, etc. The effort to make creationists appear as you described above is not incidental. It is the mark of an entrenched faith group purposefully impugning its detractors.

At a very minimum, scientists should be able to honestly speak about the problems with evolution.

 

Scott J, great post! You expressed a lot of my thoughts.

 

Bump to Charles

 

Scott,

Yes that really was a good post. I agree with nearly everything you said.

Sorry I've been very busy this month. My grandmother passed away, we have orchestra recital at church, and work is BUSY!



In response to your earlier question about what "I believe"...

I believe that the Bible is inerrant in what it intends to say. I do believe that since God allowed humans to write down His word there can be such things as copyist errors or errors in translation. As such I believe that we can use our brains to learn more about the bible.

Consider the prior assumptions that the earth was flat and that the sun HAD to orbit the earth. Scientific observation showed otherwise - and this was initially thought to be heretical and unbiblical! But we learned from it!

I'll use this as an example. I won't go as far as to say here that the same is true for the Genesis account - but I'll say that we should see it as an example that we should not be afraid to question a traditional view of a doctrine is scientific observation suggests something different.

Regarding evolution... I do not consider myself an evolutionist. As a physician I can assure you that the complexity of life is unfathomable. There MUST have been an intelligent designer! I do however think that some finite aspects of evolution have occurred - or at least are likely to have occurred given what we see. I also assert that the earth is likely old. I do believe in a literal Adam - particularly since he is included in genealogies.

I've ended up arguing the more "liberal" position in many of these arguments - not necessarily my choice!

And I don't have any problems with any of the more convservative positions! Rather I mostly have concern about some of the assumptions that underlie many of the conservative stances.

I think many have been so "indoctrinated" in traditional doctrines that they wouldn't even dare to even comtemplate anything different!

Many here are already 100% decided that Genesis 1 is literally true before they even examine the science, before they do an in depth reading of the text, before they do any near eastern language or culture study...

Indeed there is even a thread here about whether an evolutionist can be saved!!!



I'll readily admit that most evolutionary scientists are indeed heavily biased - thinking that the creationists are ALL small-minded idiots. That's certainly true. Most wouldn't even give a young earth a second thought.

My overall argument would be that we approach God's word with reverence for what it is - but that we use our God-given abilities and sense in dealing with it. We should not elevate the Bible to something we are afraid to examine or something that we put on a pedestal and worship. That is not what God intended.

I think there is sufficient room for debate in many of these topics - and Christians should discuss in a Christian manner, putting our kinship before our differences.

 

Not to stray off-topic but a recent development has the potential to jump-start exactly that.

Within the past few months 81 year old Antony Flew, arguably the most famous atheist in the world, has renounced atheism and embraced theism (perhaps deism, he doesn't seem firm about it yet). Anyway, the thing that converted Flew was the scientific "evidence" of recent "intelligent design and fine tuning arguments".

Here is a man who knew C.S.Lewis, Bertrand Russell, and others personally. In a 2004 interview, very recently completed and yet to be published, Flew is interviewed by a Christian academic who has known him and debated him over the years. A fascinating read, here's the link:

Antony Flew Interview

Note: The opening paragraph says interview to be published in January, 2004 - a typo. January 2005 is correct.

 

I started a thread on Anthony Flew in the News/Current Events Forum on Dec. 9 and a total of 2 people responded! That was it! Pretty much zero interest.

You'd think a few more people would show interest. Flew is a big deal in the atheist/skeptic community, and this step, as small as it is, is making a big splash.

The link above is an interview by Craig Hazen, who posted this news on another list that I am on, and that's how I knew about it.

 

I meant to post the link to that BB thread on Flew and forgot. Here it is:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/2636.html?

 

Funny, Marcia, I did a search for Flew about Dec.12 and pulled up 2 immaterial results, but one of them was the Watchman Nee thread from October which compelled me to post.

Yes, it is a big deal and I look forward to doing the link - see you over there.

 

For one: No requirement in Scripture for faith in an inerrant book. The Scriptures require faith in Jesus, not an untenable doctrine of scripture.

Two: The book is sufficient, but not inerrant.

 

For one: No requirement in Scripture for faith in an inerrant book. The Scriptures require faith in Jesus, not an untenable doctrine of scripture.

Two: The book is sufficient, but not inerrant. </font>[/QUOTE]So if the bible is only sufficient but not inerrant, how do we know about Jesus? How do we know which parts about Jesus are true and which are not? How do we know he really rebuked the sea and wind? How do we know he predicted his death and resurrection? How do we know he said what the Bible says what he said?

How do you decide what is true and what isn't in the Bible and on what authority do you do so?