To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

DD,

Liberals are always looking for the "hidden" meaning that is separated from what the text actually says.

This is simply not the case. "Liberals (a term that would not describe anyone on this board that I know of) generally will say, "this looks scientifically or practically unlikely so we reject it".

Origen looked for hidden meanings as do some contemporary Jewish thinkers. The plausibility of such allegorical meanings is little.

What I and many moderate conservatives advocate is that we look for the most likely meaning of the text. To insist that if it makes sense literally it should be literal completely discounts potential authorial intent.

One reason that Genesis 1 might be nonliteral?

Have youever read Enuma Elish? What about the primordial monsters (Leviathan, Rahab etc) who pop up in the Bible who were part of multiple near eastern creation myths. Why would a literal and scientifically relevant account have benefited the ancient Hebrews? They would have likely heard of ancient near eastern myths. If Moses wrote in a similar style they would have recognized it easily. The point was to show that it was YHWH (not Marduk) who made the earth, and that YHWH did it independent of any "gods", monsters or otherwise.


I love the Genesis 1 account and would not have a problem believing it if Jesus Himself had specifically addressed this. But He didn't. You are right to point out that Jesus mentioned Adam and his role in salvation history - but a nonliteral Genesis 1 doesn't mean Adam didn't exist.

And regarding the scientists...

C'mon. I worked (as a college student and a med student) in multiple labs with renowned biologists and researchers. The agnostic old earthers outnumber the creationists about 99 to 1 (probably more). The point is that science suggests an old earth - it just does. That doesn't mean that we accept it over the Bible by default. But I still assert that we should not be afraid to learn what God allows us to learn.

 

2 Sam. 21:19 = 1 Chr. 20:5

There was a good thread on this in the Bible Versions/Translations page, and it's laughable how many people came up with explanations saying, it was Goliath's son in 2 Sam. 21:19, or Goliath's brother who's father named him Goliath after the real Goliath's death, or another man totally unrelated to Goliath who happened to be named Goliath and have a spear just like Goliath's, or Elhanan killed a different Goliath (than David did) in 2 Sam. 21:19 and then killed his brother in 1 Chr. 20:5, or Elhanan was really a different name that was used for David, and David after killing Goliath went and killed his brother, etc., etc., etc., totally ignoring the scribal facts behind the two parallel passages and how the errors of 2 Sam. 21:19 crept into the text. So some apologists end up with "brilliant" explanations to elevate scribal errors to inspired truth, without looking at the "critical" explanations that actually maintain the integrity of the original Scripture.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

My perspective on some of the posts in this thread and elsewhere,

It is Daniel David’s personal conviction that the Book of Genesis (including chapters 1 – 11) is a factual, literal account of creation and subsequent history, and Daniel David bases this conviction upon fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis and the several passages in other books in the Bible that refer to some of the details in Genesis.

It is Charles Meadows’ personal conviction that the Book of Genesis is not a factual, literal account of creation and subsequent history, and Charles Meadows bases this conviction upon the fact that Genesis “is written in the style of prior near eastern epic and because the earth seems very unlikely to be 6-10,000 years old.”

Daniel David’s personal conviction is based upon grossly uninformed interpretations of the Bible that are in direct conflict with hundreds of years of Biblical, biological, geological, and literary scholarship.

Charles Meadows personal conviction is based upon highly informed interpretations of the Bible that are in complete agreement with hundreds of years of Biblical, biological, geological, and literary scholarship.

Daniel David has no solid basis for his personal convictions on this matter, and has no data to support them, so he resorts to personal attacks against Charles Meadows.

Charles Meadows has a very solid basis for his personal convictions, and an almost infinite amount of data to support them, but he is faced with an opponent who automatically rejects all information that demonstrates the foolishness of his position. Therefore Charles Meadows best defense is his superior Christian conduct which draws into question the convictions held by Daniel David.

 

Jos. 10:12b-13a:

Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon
and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still
and the moon stayed,
until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.

The Genesis thing is getting a little old. Here's a poetic interjection in the midst of narrative and so what is to be done with it. Literal or not? Does what the author was intending when he composed the passage this way have anything to do with it?

What it comes down to is: can we really know anything from the text alone? Or is the text something we need to enhance in order to understand.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Charles, I thought I made it clear that I am aware of copyist errors. I was under the impression that this topic was about non-copyist errors in the Bible. Am I wrong?

Also, how do you do you know McDowell approaches apparent contradictions, discrepencies, etc. with that in his mind? Have you asked him? How do you know he is not just responding to attacks by skeptics by looking at the text? And by doing that, people have discovered the resolutions, at least of the ones I know about.

 

Charles, Enuma Elish and other near eastern creation myths are nothing like the account in Gen. 1!! That is one of the distinctives of the Gen 1 account that I find fascinating -- it is SO unlike mythlike tales. The Near Eastern creation accounts remind me of the mythical Far Eastern accounts (as in Hinduism and Buddhism) and Native American tales of creation. The narrative style of Gen 1 and 2 and it's absolute simplicity and order are so superior to and distinctive from the creation myths of other religions.

So if Gen 1 is nonliteral but Adam is, how does that square? Isn't it strange and rather odd to have a literal Adam in a non-literal setting? I can tell you from a literary viewpoint that it is not only strange but downright confusing. I don't see God doing this. Do you think the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil literal? Do you think the serpent is literal?

There are 2 fallacies here that do not make your views necessarily valid:
1. Fallacious appeal to authority (you were just a student, and there is much conflict on this issue in the fields of biology and "researchers")so this proves nothing
2. Appeal to popularity (again, in a field riveted with conflicting views)

I am not surprised the agnostics outnumber the creationists since I imagine it must be very difficult to get anywhere in that field as a creationist.

Would love your answer on the Tree of K. of G & E and the Serpent!

 

Marcia,

Also, how do you do you know McDowell approaches apparent contradictions, discrepencies, etc. with that in his mind? Have you asked him? How do you know he is not just responding to attacks by skeptics by looking at the text? And by doing that, people have discovered the resolutions, at least of the ones I know about.

I have all of McDowell's books. I read them over and over when I was first saved and was questioned about such things. They may be satisfying for one who has a very cursory knowledge of science or scripture - but they, in truth, do more to hurt our cause (in the eyes of the lost) than they do to help it. He starts with the premise that the Bible is literally true in all instances and then procedes to harmonize any way possible to reconcile perceived errors. This is fundamentally wrong-headed.

And the copyist error thing is relevant only in that you are willing to concede that the literally infallible and inerrant Bible contains "copyist ERRORs". That you would admit to such "errors" seems a little inconsistent with your other assertions.

My suggested approach to an apparent discrepancy between the Bible (which I consider to be inerrant) and what we see (scientifically or otherwise) is to examine all areas. I don't simply say, "The Bible must be LITERALLY true" so the science is wrong." This leads to scientific arguments which are bogus (like the second law of thermodynamics thing) and obviously contrived.

Now that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to accept that science could be wrong. But I also think we should look at our pattern of interpretation for error as well. I argue that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be literal so seeing an old earth does NOT represent a disagreement with the Bible.

 

Marcia,

Enuma Elish shares many similarities with the Genesis account, like it or not. I'm not asserting that Genesis 1 is a copycat work, indebted to pagan tradition. Rather I'm saying that Moses knew of it and knew that the Israelities likely also were familiar with it. Thus he used an epic type account with intentional mythologic parallels to show that YHWH is all His self sufficiency created everything.

Regarding my experience in the sciences. See it as you like - but the majority of scientists are old earth evolutionists. I'm not defending them - I'm merely asserting fact. While there are some creationist scientists they are few; and indeed they also approach the issue with there own presuppositions (anti-evolution no matter what). I've never had a problem with those who disagree with the scientific suggestion of an old earth - rather only with those who twist the facts, arguing thatmost science supports a young earth or that huge numbers of natural scientists support a young earth.

And my take of the tree and the serpent?

The tree of life has numerous parallels in Canaanite mythology. Look at the description of the divine garden in Gilgamesh - sound a little familiar? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has no near eastern parallel with which I am familiar. I certainly have no problem with the idea of a literal tree. The important issue, as Waltke points out, is the significance of the ability to recognize evil and good - the tree is a merism for this concept.

The serpent passage reflects temptation, obviously. Did the serpent REALLY talk? Did Adam hear him or just Eve? What's the significance of a serpent who talks? As Cassuto points out even Balaam's ass spoke at the behest of God! The serpent seems to know everything already! How did he know it and not the fox or the owl? The importance of the serpent is certainly Satanic. In the cosmic war myth the evil serpent monsters are conquered. Does not Isaiah 27 speak of God defeating Leviathan (serpent)? The use of the serpent is not random. The significance is that Satan tempted man and he fell. I don't know whether the snake actually PHYSICALLY spoke or Eve simply was tempted and sinned.

 

Might also point out that it is not a fallacious appeal to authority to talk about what experts in an area have to say about a subject.

 

Craig, I am talking about CHRISTIAN theology. This would be theology derived from a CHRISTIAN perspective. In other words, my theology will be developed from the text of Scripture. Since Scripture presents itself as absolute divine revelation from God (and therefore perfect), and the fact that Christ validated Scripture and its authority, the Scriptures are my authoritative source on every issue of truth and practice.

You cannot refute that both Christ and Paul refer to Adam and Eve as literal people, who experienced literal events, who literally brought sin into the world, who literally were married, who literally were the first couple, etc.

The New Testament usage of the Genesis account assumes a literal interpretation.

Consider 1 Tim. 2. Paul says that Eve was deceived. This is a theological point that he uses to address the role of women in the church. It wasn't mythical or allegory in any way. He treated it literally.

Consider Romans 5:12. Death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. Was Paul right or wrong? He not only uses this concept with regards to our personal salvation, but also the redemption of the entire world order (see Romans 8).

I could go on and on. Consider Romans 4. Consider Matthew 19. Etc.

Bottom line is this: Liberals do not accept Scripture as their authority. Chuckles would rather the word of agnostic scientists over Scripture. That is fine. Hell knows no predujice.

Christians (not just professing) accept the authority of God's word, as this is obedience to him.

 

I think I stated much earlier in the thread that I believe the Bible to be inerrant in the originals. Copyist and translation errors are obviously there; those are not errors of God. So I still can say the Bible is infallible and inerrant. When most people say that (including my mission board, my church, and my seminary), they mean inerrant in the originals. I just thought this was the typical evangelical position and everyone understood that (dumb me, I guess, huh? ).

I don't think evolution is science, but that's another argument. In my view, science and the Bible do not conflict because, after all, God created the universe and the laws by which it operates.

It's not what Moses intended -- God gave Moses those words.

 

Marcia, chuckles uses what is called redaction criticism.

 

What is redaction criticism?

 

Below is a link to an article by Walter Kaiser (excerpt is last 2 paragraphs). I am not just posting it for you but for others who might like to read the whole article or have it a source:

Here is another link to an article on the issue of Genesis and Near Eastern myths:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/69rhj

I know, but I said that I imagine it's extremely difficult for creationists to get anywhere in the academic world of science. Also, why are non-creationists always assumed to be unbiased? All men are biased. Skeptics and atheist scientists are just as biased as creationists.

I think the serpent was real, but that we don't know if the serpent was merely used a medium for Satan to speak through or whether Satan took the disguise of a serpent. But God describes the serpent as one of the creatures ("more crafty than any beast of the field"), so I think it was a real serpent. I wrote a paper on the serpent in the Pentateuch and in Egypt for seminary which I slight modified for my website if interested. It's at
http://cana.userworld.com/cana_serpents1.html
The Serpent in Egypt and in The Bible: Evil, Power, and Healing

 

Hello, UTE! Yes, I thought about this before posting that as a fallacy. The reason I did is because the experts are not in unison at all and this:

 

Does it seem unlikely that Noah built an ark and that 2 of every kind of animal lived on that ark during a global flood that killed every other creature on the face of the earth? Perhaps that was not literal. How likely is it that a virgin gave birth to a child? Perhaps that wasn't literal either. The general likelihood of God coming to earth in a physical body to die for your sins is pretty minimal. I wouldn't put too much faith in that either if I were you...

If we are going to base our opinion of the truthfulness of God's word on the anecdotes of godless scientists, why not just go ahead and give them His throne as well?

Isaiah 45:21
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

We know that God exists. We probably did not come to this conclusion because we decided that every verse in the bible was infallible and therefore we could not argue against God. Rather, we were probably persuaded by other means, an appeal to creation as evidence of a creator, or acknowledging the truth of the fallen state of man because the word pricked our conscience. The word of God does not require our defense, it stands on its own. It is quick and powerful like a two-edged sword. It proves itself as the word of God to those who will accept such a thing. To those who scoff at the mere idea of God, how much more will they scoff at the idea that He wrote a book?

The natural world when understood properly will not contradict the word of God. But we cannot presume to be able to come to all knowledge without God revealing it to us. If a man has rejected the evidence that God says is more than sufficient to draw us to Him, there is no reason to believe that continued investigation into the matter beyond what the word of God reveals is going to be any more convincing. So an ungodly man looks around at the universe and says 'This has obviously been here for billions of years, and there is no way that this could have been created by God in 7 days.' Well, God already gave the man the same chance that each of us had to come to the knowledge of the truth, and that man rejected it. He is going to continue to find reasons to disbelieve until he is ultimately condemned to the lake of fire, or he repents of his rejecting the light that was revealed to him already and he draws nigh to God. There certainly is plenty of evidence out there to indicate that man does not understand what he is looking at, but rather than consider the possibility that he was wrong about God in the first place, he will usually just continue to lie to himself and say that what he sees is perfectly explainable by naturalistic means, let me just rewrite my theories for the 100th time and get back to not believing in God.

Now they must wonder, why does the early universe appear so mature? This is an example of what the scientific community is up against in order to keep their pet God-hating theories. They will decide some other explaination to get around it in their minds, and what, will we be forced then to make the bible fit their new idea of how space and time originated? Or do we just throw our hands up and say 'well, the bible doesn't really say the earth is young, it is just an allegory' so that we can try to convince them that they need to be saved by a God who doesn't exist in their minds?

Luke 14:33
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

God wants you to forsake everything, including your own understanding of how things should work. I believe that when we have settled down in eternity with the Lord, and 10 billion years down the road when we get around to asking those silly questions that plagued us when we stayed up late eating the bread of sorrows over them, someone is going to look up to Jesus and ask 'How did you really create the universe?' His reply might be something like 'little child, you read Genesis didn't you?'

 

Charles Meadows:

Have you read any of Henry Morris' books? I personally think he and his son do the best job of anyone on the subject of creation.

Morris takes a look at creation aspect from a gelogical point of view. The Genesis Record I think is porobably one of the finest books written on the subject. The ICR organization also sell DVD's, videos and books. Reading the material he writes has helped me to be more enlighhtened on the subject.I too spent my first two years in college as a physics major and found it very helpful. Henry Morris taught hydrology. But there is a lot of trash out there by some "theologians" who claim to speak for science and don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sometimes it is hard to decipher their trash from the good. So I stick with those who have consistently proven themselves. Morris is one of those.

Their website is at http://www.icr.org/

The store is at http://www.icr.org/page/001/SFNT

 

The Bible obviously had "redactors" or editors. For example, Moses composed the Pentateuch, but someone else edited and updated it.

Dt. 34:5-6: "So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." This "unto this day", or phrases like it, occur all the time in the OT and are one evidence of "redaction" that occured a good bit of time after original composer.

Dt. 34:10: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face." This is an absurd statement if Moses himself wrote it.

Gn. 36:31: "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This is a strange way to introduce kings of Edom if no king had yet reigned in Israel. Besides this, the list of Edomite kings that follows runs clear to the time of David, or at least Saul!

Jdg. 18:30: "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." This at least presupposes the Assyrian captivity of 722 B.C.

Knowing these things about the text doesn't weaken it. Those who say only one person wrote every word of the Pentateuch, for example, actually weaken the text and its defense due to their own presuppositions they impose on the text.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Marcia,

Read my post again. I never said that Genesis account was based on Enuma Elish. But there are similarities and Enuma Elish IS older. Just as Kaiser inveighs against it Nahum Sarna explains how it does incorporate details of near eastern epic.

And I never said the the evolutionists are baised. Of course they are.


Daniel David,

Once again your post to me is full of insults (I admire how you try so hard to emulate Christ by the way) and little substance. Are you scared to actually read a nonfundamentalist book because it might shake your faith.

And if you'll read my posts you'll see over and over again that I have no problem with believeing any scripture literally. But I have asserted that we should not feel encumbered to do so if textual or historical factors suggest otherwise.

And, once again, I do not discount a literal Adam or Eve. I simply chose to see Genesis one as likely figurative - although I have no problem with one who believes otherwise.

 

Daniel David,

"Chuckles would rather the word of agnostic scientists over Scripture. That is fine. Hell knows no predujice."

Once again no I don't. Have you ever even read one of my posts?

Also I would appreciate your not calling into question my salvation. I could think of many hurtful things to say about you based on your conduct on the board (which is always decidedly unChristian) - but I won't do so because that is not befitting of a Christian.

If you disagree with me then do so with meaningful reproof and not insults.