To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

By the fact that both Paul and Christ use Genesis two in their teachings. If it wasn't really true, it wouldn't be a foundational principle to one's teaching.

Further, in Romans 5, Paul addresses the fall of man, as recorded in Genesis.

Paul taught that Christ was the creator of all things. Is this true or not?

 

Daniel David replied,

Daniel David’s logic here is seriously flawed. The fact that both Jesus and Paul used Genesis in their teachings only demonstrates that their audience was likely to be familiar enough with the passages of Genesis alluded to in order for them to understand and agree with the points that Jesus and Paul were making. Paul taught that Christ was the creator of all things, but he certainly didn’t teach that he did so according to Daniel David’s (or anyone else’s) particular interpretation of Genesis.

 

Sorry craig, I don't think fantasy belongs in this section.

Is Christ the direct creator of all things or not?

Did the fall of man happen just like Scripture said or not?

Did Genesis 2:24 actually happen just like the Scripture said? Jesus said, "It was not so from the BEGINNING."

 

No we don't! As I stated earlier for those with a technical background there is a excellent book out by physicist D. Russell Humphreys, PhD entitled Starlight and Time. This book presents an interesting explanation for the long times required for starlight to reach the earth, based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, all within the framework of a 6 day creation. It can be purchased from Christianbook.com.

 

Or that God has the ability to speak the universe into existence in the exact condition necessary to meet His purposes.

God is not governed by time as we are but at the same time, He had no particular reason to tell Moses that creation occurred in six days if it actually did not. Think about it. Moses would have been just as receptive to God's Word if He had alluded to evolution or even a very old earth.

God, knowing the future, was under no constraint to describe creation in a way that contradicts what modern science "knows" occurred. According to the Bible, God created the sun and stars after He created plants.

 

Of course there is. Unless you are contending something I haven't heard before... that God created everything in 6 days billions of years ago.

 

He actually gave us a much better record when He told Moses that creation was accomplished in 6 days and that Adam was the first man- fully formed as a man, not a product of evolution.

 

But you don't know this. The only eye witness to creation gave us a book through inspired writers that says that creation occurred in 6 days and gave a geneology that places the time of that creation within the past 10,000 years.

The only reason I can think of that you would declare this impossible is that you don't think God is capable of it.

According to God's purposes, He required the earth and universe to be as they have been for the past 6000-10000 years. God did not require billions of years to accomplish this task. Just because something appears old to you does not mean it is old. The problem can be your perception as easily as the stated facts of the Bible.

 

So in other words, Christ built His teachings on a foundation that He knew was false without addressing it? He who was Truth allowed people to continue believing a lie?

 

I think we're getting off topic here. I don't think the poster of the OP intended for this to become (yet another) creation/evolution debate.

 

Christian theology excludes evolution, theistic or otherwise.

Sin entered the world through Adam.

 

No, it most certainly does not!

The Bible does not answer that question?

“See spot run.”

“Spot is funny.”

 

I agree.

 

It seems to me that alot of us are afraid that if we reconsider any traditional doctrine that we'll soon be giving away the whole farm!

Science SUGGESTS earth is old. If this were not so then why do the VAST MAJORITY of scientists (not apologists with DMins) believe this to be so?

We can see by reading Genesis one that the intent was not tom describe things scientifically - so what's the big fuss?

Seeing the earth as old and the account as nonliteral does not mean Adam didn't exist or that Christianity is wash!

We're willing to accept scientific knowledge in all other areas except when it calls into question one of our pet traditional doctrines.

Do you need to PROVE scientifically that God exists? I don't!!

 

Chuckles, I would actually agree that Gen. 1 isn't supposed to be scientific. It is supposed to be historical fact though. That is what you are calling into question.

 

Sometime read about who Genesis was written to, the time period, their immediate level of understanding, and the purpose of the writing.

 

The parables of Christ are good examples of something that is not factual, but is true. When Jesus said that if a body part offends us, we should cut it off, this is not a literally factual statement, but is true. If it were factual, there would be a lot of Christian amputees.

Men gave contradicting facts. God face uncontradicting truth. Men wrote scripture. God inspired it. Two completely different things.

Because the facts in question have nothing to do with the truth contained in the message, as I stated earlier and gave examples to.

No, not at all. Minor discremancy in facts does not compromise the truth contained therein. Clearly, here in your replies, you're having a problem discerning between the two.

Not at all, sine truth and fact are not synonymous. Every day, this board is full of posts which complain that the liberal media tell us untruths. This despite the facts that they give us are typically correct. Likewise, we often read news stories which are true, but some of the details that appeared to be correct at the time may later be found not to be factual. In most cases, the truth of those news stories remains. Truth and fact are most definitely not synomymous. </font>[/QUOTE]You're getting literal mixed up with factual, JohnV. When Jesus talked about cutting off body parts, it was a hyperbole and a way of emphasis -- this is not what we are talking about. Jesus wasn't getting facts wrong. This is a terrible example. This is not the topic of facts and truth.

Men wrote scritpure and God inspiring it are two different things? How? Please explain!

Your last example is not good, either. A true story with wrong details shows that some the facts are wrong and/or that the story is not completely true. If I say that 2 robbers stole $5,000 and a TV and it turns out they stole $5,000 and a car, then the story is partially wrong, or it's partially true but has some wrong facts.

You still have not made your case that something can be true with wrong facts, or that God's inspired words can be true but have wrong facts.
What you seem to be saying is that the Bible is not totally true.

As far as the sign posted above Jesus' head, check out When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. On p. 362 they tackle this issue. I don't have time to write it all out, but briefly, they say that Jn 19.20 points out that the signs were written in 3 languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin). So differences could have come from the way the different languages phrased it. "King of the Jews" is given in all 4 gospels. Also, it is possible that each gospel is giving only part of what is on the sign: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." The accounts are complementary, not contradictory.

 

Also, when Jesus told parables, people knew they were allegories. They were not lies, they were not factually incorrect. They were parables.

This still does not show your case that the Bible has truth but wrong facts unless this is how you interpret facts.