To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

Marcia, check out the differences in the gospels between the discovery of the empty tomb.

 

Why, do you think they contradict each other?

 

The rest from the same link -- computer would not post it all...

 

Here's more info, JohnV, if you want to see how Christians respond to the Muslims or other skeptics on the resurrection:

This link goes to a page with an extensive response to alleged contradictions of the resurrection accounts
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html
Excerpt from above:

There's more, those are just excerpts.

 

An interpretation of the known facts that operates under the assumption that supernatural forces have not played a part in natural history suggests... er, requires, that the earth is old.

They assume that all things continues as they were since the beginning of creation... see 2 Peter 3. Denying the supernatural acts of God in the past gives them a basis for denying that they will be judged. Huxley even acknowledged this as a motivator for developing and believing in evolution.

They, like creationists, start with a set of assumptions. One is uniformatarianism... except of course when they need natural history not to be uniform.

Another is that God never acted supernaturally in the course of natural history.

Another is that no direct, creative force is necessary or even allowable when explaining data. They don't have to deny God's existence... just that He was a necessary or even a possible force in the formation of the universe and life.

The Bible in both testaments uses wording that expresses a indefinite long period of time. Genesis does not do that. It specifically uses "day" and moreover defines the day as a morning and an evening. There is not much more that could have been done to indicate that literal days were being talked about.

The big deal is that many want to accept the imaginings of godless men as authoritative and then try to force the Word of the only Attendee of creation to fit the opinions of men.

There are two basic approaches represented here. One side says that the literal understanding of scripture that in no way indicates that it is allegorical is to be held until science categorically proves something to the contrary. The other side says that the opinions of scientists are authoritative and therefore scripture cannot mean what it actually says.

One side says that if scientists interpret age in what they observe it makes God deceptive if the earth is actually young. The other says that God is deceptive if He gave us words that sound literal knowing that we, and most men with biblical knowledge through the ages, would accept those words at face value. Given the choice, I accept the authority of God's special revelation over human interpretations of general revelation... especially when many of the interpreters have a philosophical bias against interpretting nature as a revelation of God.

I start from a position as objective as possible. I believe God is fully capable of creating all that is in billions of years or that God is capable of creating everything that is, exactly as it is, in the time it took you to take your last breath.

To many, it makes man simply a highly evolved animal... making Christianity a wash.

Really? How about the resurrection? "Scientific knowledge" says that people who are dead decay... not rise up and walk out of their tombs.

Please show where a law of science is in contradiction with a normal reading of any "natural" event or proposition of the Bible.

Then why would you accept a fallible human theory as a limit to His omnipotence and omniscience?

At the end of the whole cycle, I am left with one unavoidable set of facts.

God spoke directly to Moses for many days.

He gave Him the details to write concerning the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Contrary to some of the earlier arguments, God had a means of communicating "long periods of time" to Moses without using "day" (morning and evening). He could have said "in the days of eternity past..." then culminated with the direct creation or spiritual birth of the first "man". He didn't do this. Instead, He used very specific terms.

The argument over the age of things isn't concluded even among evolution espousing scientists.

The factual data has more than one reasonable explanation.

God has supernaturally acted in natural history and the affairs of men and the theory of evolution ignores this as a factor.

God is all powerful and simply does not need billions of years to accomplish His purpose.

 

Wow. Well said Scott.

lacy

 

I agree. This specificity also sets the scripures apart from the myth-like tales of creation in other religions. The narrative style of Genesis, the logical and careful order of things, and the overarching sovereignty of God make the creation account so superior to creation accounts I've read in Buddhist tales, Hindu tales, Native American tales, and pagan myths.

Not only that, but the creation account of Gen 1 has a beautiful parallel with John chapter 1.

 

Thanks Lacy. I kind of like being on your side for a change.

 

Scott,

Very reasonable reply. It's nice to find people who will discuss and not hurl insults and rants!!

I still have some problems with your answers.

Let's start at the beginning...

The thread asks to what extent the Bible is infallible and inerrant. My first question to that would be, "how do you determine that it is accurate or inaccurate?" If we assume that the Bible is God's word to us then by definition it should contain no error! In fact I would suggest we start with the premise that it is inerrant.

Now compare this to science. While the universities of our land contain scientists of every race, creed and presupposition I think it is fair to say that most are neither Christian nor anti-Christian. Rather many simply want to gain knowledge. The body of scientific evidence we have is not complete nor is it conceded to be inerrant. It represents empirical observations as well as "best educated guesses".

Now consider our dilemma. Science has suggested that the earth is not young and that life may not have appeared instantaneously (not necessarily my assertion). This appears to conflict with the account given in the OT.

So let's look at the Genesis account. Now I'm no "scholar" but I can read Hebrew well and have read quite a number of works - from fundamentalist to liberal in scope! So I at least feel like I can give a balanced observation. My point is this: It has been determined (arbitrarily or otherwise) that Genesis should be read literally. Why is that? Given the style and genre we can say it is UNLIKELY that this represents any sort of intended allegory. A day is a day and not an epoch - that's pretty well given. But looking at the style, the audience, and other works with which Moses and the people would have been familiar one could also conclude that Moses was NOT INTENDING TO BE LITERAL. Perhaps rather he intended to tell a story (using mythical language) showing that YHWH created the earth. I'm not insisting we accept this - but it cannot be discounted as a viable explanation for the story. But yet it has already been determined (by whom I'm not sure) that it MUST be literal.

Therefore when we compare the biblical account to the scientific one we are forced to see the Bible as a literal 6 day account and thus conflicitng with science.

Is it wrong to use language study, history, philology, archeology etc to help us study the Bible? I don't think so!

Should we reject a nonliteral view of Genesis 1 because it is not what we're used to? I don't think so.

Your point about the Resurrection accounts is well taken - but tangentially applicable. The Gospels were written expressly for the purpose of witness. There is no doubt at all that they intended to assert the Christ rose. Different language, different style, different audience than the OT. The gospels necessarily assert that God worked miraculously in human history. Does the Genesis account absolutely assert that God acted miraculously? Yes! But does the Genesis account really intend to tell day by day how He did it? We have already suggested otherwise.

So my assertion would be that the Bible and science SEEM to be inconflict. Now that could be because some of our scientific knowledge was gleaned with presupposition, and therefore wrongly concluding the earth is old. It could also be because we have (a priori) decided that Genesis 1 must be literal (despite reasons to think otherwise) and are UNWILLING TO EVEN CONSIDER OTHERWISE no matter what science or literary study suggests.

As I said - I don't feel any compulsion to PROVE God's word. That demonstrates a lack of faith in it. But I am willing to learn - and want to learn. And I am not afraid to challenge the norm if it means being TRUE to God's word.

 

Its possible to list apparant contradictions and errors in the Bible; its possible to work up explanations for all of them; and its possible to construe some of those explanations as kind of far fetched.

THEREFORE we"ll never really settle this argument and perhaps we might as well actually consider the EVIDENCE to evaluate whether or not the earth is billions of years old and all life is of common descent. People who succeed in reconciling all contradictions can certainly succeed in one more challenge such as accepting the evidence for old universe and common descent.

 

I'm wondering why a "week" has seven days. For how long has this been the case? A lunar month has 28 days, so why couldn't a week be 4 days or 14 days? Who came up with seven days to a week if it wasn't from the beginning?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Me to.

 

When the earth was formed--where were we?

God was there. He said He did it suddenly.

Why do some not believe that?

We do err not knowing the scripture and the power of God.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't "think" they do, they do.

Matthew says that two women (Mary Madgdelene and the other Mary) went to the tomb to look after it. An earthquake ensued, and an angel came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it.

Mark and Luke say that some women, including Mary Magdalene, went to the tomb of Jesus on the first day of the week and found the stone rolled away from the tomb's entrance. This contradicts Matthew's account of the stone not yet being rolled away.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all say that an angel (or man) announced that Jesus was not there and risen from the dead. Matthew says it was one angel, sitting on the stone. Mark says it was one man inside the tomb. Luke has two men inside the tomb. John records that no men or angels were there at the tomb's discovery. Instead, John has two men who appear outside the tomb when Mary Magdalene returns the the tomb later on.

Now, are these differences in fact? Yes, absolutely. Are they differences in truth, absolutely not. This is not a problem for christians, since these factual differences are not significant to doctrine. This is also not a problem for belief in an inspired bible, since the bible itself says it is inerrant in truth, but does not make the same claim in regards to fact.

We must remember that each book in scripture was written by a different person, at a different time, often in a different location, for a different purpose, and to a different audience. Failing to take these things into account can (and often does) result in misinterpretation of scripture, and sometimes misapplication of scripture. Any thread on headcoverings is testament to that. We must remember that "what does scripture read" is not synonymous to "what does scripture say".

 

James,

"He said He did it suddenly."

I think it is WE who said He did it suddenly. My point to Scott is that WE insist on a literal Genesis 1. Yes it is written as a narrative (not poetry) but just because a 21st century western reader sees it as a literal story that doesn't mean an easterner 4000 years ago would have seen it the same way. There are in fact many reasons to see this as NOT INTENDED TO BE LITERAL.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong - or that anyone who believes in a literal Genesis 1 is wrong.

I think we can state emphatically that the Bible is inerrant. Science may be errant - true!

BUT........

Our interpretation of Genesis 1 may alos not be completely correct. As I said - if science suggests an old earth and knowledge of ancient near eastern writings suggests that Moses was perhaps narrating a theological epic - then I'm not afraid to go against tradition IF IT MEANS BEING TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF GOD'S WORD!!

 

JohnV, so you are essentially saying that God contradicts himself (barring copyist errors). Did you not read all the stuff I posted explaining this?? Please take the time to look at it and this:

 

More from the same page. Are you unaware that there are explanations offered by numerous evangelical scholars showing there is no contradiction? I hope you are going to check these out and not just continue to assert there are contradicitions without reading some answers.