To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

Chuckles, I have posted text after text along with the theological ramifications for the correct interpretation. You will not address such issues. How am I the one who does not deal with the issues? You are the one avoiding everything.

Btw, I am hardly afraid of what lost people think about Scripture.

 

Why is it that sceptics always imply that the Genesis account of creation is based on pagan accounts rather than the possibility that pagan accounts are based on the Genesis record?

 

Old regular,

Skeptics say this because the pagan accounts are older. Enuma Elish was certainly written before Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses may have known nothing of it - but given his high degree of education I'd say hie did.

Neither I nor anyone here is suggesting that the creation account is nothing but a rehash of pagan writings.

But like it or not Moses was writing to a buch of near eastern people who probably grew up here this type of mythical story. Is it not possible that he phrased Genesis 1 in epic language intentionally?

 

Daniel David,

"You are the one avoiding everything."

I disagree her obviously. But since you insist I'll rehash.

I've never said Adam didn't exist, nor that Eve and Adam didn't sin. Christ refers to Adam and thus validates his existence. What I am suggesting is that Genesis 1 (this does not inlcude Genesis 2 or 3) was likely phrased in epic language intentionally by Moses since the Israelites likely were familiar with Enuma Elish and other myths.

I also have not relied on the opininions of men over God. You still seem to think I have more respect for the opinions of lost scientists than that of God. You can think what you want. I simply am willing to use the brain God gave me. I think He also gave one to everyone else as well.

And I'll ask you once again not to make remarks about being lost. If my trust in Christ as savior is not enough to save me then you too are a man most miserable.

And if you don't mind my name is Charles.

 

What is redaction criticism? </font>[/QUOTE]It means that later people edited the earlier books. This idea comes from the school of German Higher Criticism that went from around the late 18th century into the 20th century.

 

From a seminary paper I wrote on Higher Criticism (I got an A). There are numerous footnotes but they do not show up when I copy and paste.

 

3rd and final part of post
If there were later editors, were they inspired? If not, then not every word in the Bible is inspired by God and this would negate what God tells us in 2 Tim 3.16. Many scholars believe that the account of Moses' death could have been written by Joshua.

GB, If you want this paper to read more about this and how much of this Higher Criticism has been refuted (though it continues to be taught in liberal seminaries), just email me and I can sent it as a Word Doc.

 

Hello, Charles -- Here you say that Gen 1 is written i the style of piror near eastern epics, but one of the points I was making is that it is NOT written in the style of the near eastern epics. The literary style is quite different. I realize you are not saying that Gen 1 is a rewritten near eastern epic, but the question of style is what I am addressing here.

I've been thinking more on your statement that you believe in a literal Adam but not a literal Gen 1. It makes no sense at all from a literary or biblical viewpoint to have literal figures in a narrative but placed in a metaphorical or allegorical tale. This is confusing and contradictory and God does not write this way. If Adam is literal, then so is the narrative of Gen 1; otherwise, you have an inconsistent narrative.

Also, it raises the issue of who is deciding which parts of the narrative are literal and which parts are not, and on what basis is that decided. What's your response to this?

 

Marcia, I have already said that liberals need a less than perfect God. It justifies such professions as "christian" psychologists.

 

You never did answer my earlier question.

 

Marcia,

That's a reasonable question.

"It makes no sense at all from a literary or biblical viewpoint to have literal figures in a narrative but placed in a metaphorical or allegorical tale."

The Genesis 1 account is neither metaphorical nor allegorical. I'll ask you this: why did God give us Genesis 1? What was the point of it? It obviously wasn't to convey scientifically how the earth came about - had this been the reason God would have certainly been more detailed. Remember this story has a meaning for the ancient Israelites as well as for us today.

Adam is an actual man who speaks with God, and who has children and grandchildren. The story of the fall and of Adam's generations is distinct in scope from that of the creation, in which man is another thing that was created.

So Adam is NOT a real man in an imaginary story!

"Also, it raises the issue of who is deciding which parts of the narrative are literal and which parts are not, and on what basis is that decided. What's your response to this?"

Are we not to show ourselves approved? It's pretty plain that God din't intend for one to need a PhD to understand how to be saved. But that doesn't mean that the entirety of scripture is fully accessible to the 4th grade mind.

My point is that your decision to insist on a literal interpretation is as arbitrary as my decision to see Genesis 1 as nonliteral.

I find no problem in using the tools of logic, science, archeology etc to help me understand the harder aspects of God's word.

Contrary to what some here assert I am no liberal. The liberal sees the Bible as subservient to our knowledge. I do not assert this. But I realize that God has chosen human language and PEOPLE to transmit his word. As such I think we can utilize knowledge we have to best determine what God intended for us.

 

I think the point of Gen 1 is for God to tell us He created the world and the order in which it was created. His act of creation is the powerful beginning to subsequent creations such as being a new creation in Christ.

If you don't think Genesis 1 is metaphorical or allegorical but yet it's not literal, what is it?

I am not really insisting on a literal translation in the sense I am trying to make you believe it. I am asserting my belief in it, yes, and also trying to discover what you believe and why.

I find no problems in using archeology, science, logic, etc. as tools but these tools must have an objective basis and hard data. I do not find this to be true of evolution or theories about the age of the earth (but I don't want to diverge into a creation debate here...).

I am not sure what you mean by God using people to transmit his word. I believe that, too. I don't think any word in the originals was written outside the will of God.

 

So what is the inspired text in this case? What about the few examples I presented? Are you saying we should get back to a form of precanonical text without these editorial glosses in order to have the inspired text before us? That's actually pretty close to Wellhausen's view, HAHAHAHA! I prefer to see an inspired prophet or prophets who actually supernaturally edited and updated and presented commentary, etc., otherwise we should and must deconstruct the text in order to arrive at the "true" and "inspired" precanonical text.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Even this is grasping at straws. I mean, for cryin' out loud, how many great prophets came between Moses and Joshua for this statement to make a bit of sense: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face" (Dt. 34:10). This is a poor eulogy at best if only a short time had passed between Moses' death and the composer of this statement. Why say it unless throughout history no one had a relationship with God like Moses had, whom the LORD knew face to face?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Why is it that sceptics always imply that the Genesis account of creation is based on pagan accounts rather than the possibility that pagan accounts are based on the Genesis record? </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for answering Marcia.

Regarding MY experience with the sciences, I AM an engineer, not retired and I can tell you that scientists may not be in the majority of young earth, but more and more are changing each day.

Your post is a great example of what a lifetime of brainwashing the secular community can do. And yes, this does effect salvation because it casts doubt on God's Holy Word, so why believe the gospel if Jesus was just symbolic like the snake?

You may not like Young Earth, but evidence is growing faster and faster. I work with many scientists in the military, and guess what? Some of our best scientists in the military (of all places) are young earth Christians. They understand that evolution is ONLY a theory. That NOBODY has ever seen an animal change from one kind to another.

Your non-literal view of the Bible is what the Southern Baptists kicked out of their colleges when the reformation of conservatism took back control of the convention. Bible teachers were going further than you saying there was no virgin birth. If you don't believe the first of it, why don't you just throw out that too, and the fact of the ressurection. It must have just been a nice story told to show us how much God loves everybody on the planet.

You imply young earth is bad science when the fossil record itself lacks steps between evolving. You look at the human eye-ball with a lens, focal plane, DA converter, attachment to the brain and you say that can start out as a light sensor and turn itself all of the way into a full color television camera adapted to our brain, with an incredible dynamic range and adjustable aperture and focusing?

You watch a duck fly and with the understanding that aerodynamics is a complicated field, but the duck has everything needed including a tail, just like that of an airplane for stability? This came about in steps? Right. Theory, theory, theory, that is all it is.

The laws of thermodynamics show things return to their natural state. All of a sudden we have life that keeps getting better and better.

We won't go into this mess, but suffice it to say that maybe in your day most scientists are evolutionists. But, some of the greatest scientists I have ever met aren't. Often the loudest and most controversial are the ones who get published and on television.

Science goes on the premise that we have to have an answer that fits our time/space physical laws--there is no room for supernatural power of an almighty God.

It is attitudes like this that push non-Christians away from Christianity and cause doubt in Christians. Like I said, why stop at Genesis, let's go through Revelations and include the gospels.

 

Excuse me Marcia, I did get it wrong. You are not the retired Engineer. I appologize for that. But, it is sad that you are taking Genesis and even the serpant as symbolism.

 

Marcia,

"I am not really insisting on a literal translation in the sense I am trying to make you believe it. I am asserting my belief in it, yes, and also trying to discover what you believe and why."

Let me say this first. I have no problem at all with one who believes in a young earth because the Bible says so. I often feel uncomfortable (not pointing at you) with those who assert that a literal Genesis 1 is the only way to see it and that textual studies and science actually do support this. I'm uncomfortable with this stance because I find it at best intellectually deficient and at worst intellectually dishonest. But in truth I really don't like arguing against traditional fundamental doctrines - but I feel compelled to reprove those whom I see to be putting words in God's mouth.

My belief is that the Bible is completely inerrant in its purpose and doctrine. I just think we need to try hard to find out what the Bible REALLY says. Take Daniel's 70 weeks. If I say something will happen in 70 minutes you would probably guess I meant "70 minutes" and not 69 or 71. But to the ancient near easterner the symbolism of 7 and 10 was powerful. A prophecy of 70 weeks which was fulfilled in 64 weeks was completely accurate - and not off the mark by 6 years. Thus if we were to assume that 70 weeks must mean exactly 70 we misunderstand the prophecy. I think some of the same concepts apply to interpreting certain features of Genesis.

Regarding the allegorical/metaphoric issue. Those both entail symbolic significance of something. I think allegorical interpretation of any passage is dangerous - this leads to gnostic type thinking. I would use the term "figurative".

I'm sure this will make some people's blood boil! But I think that most who are literal inerrantists are such FIRST because of visceral conviction. That isn't necessarily bad. I'm not even saying that I'm right and the young earthers are wrong! But I don't like the mentality that feels threatened (again, not you) by anything that is different than the traditional view.

My views are borne out of nothing but a sincere desire to find out all that I can about God's word. And I don't care that involves going against the grain at times.

And I think it's important to note that we should not insist that a nonliteral view of some OT passages opens the gate for a nonliteral gospel and a humanist deconstruction of the resurrection and everything else. The OT is distinct from modern writing and distinct from the NT.

 

How do you know the pagan accounts are older?

 

Philip

I don't recall identifying myself as a retired engineer on this topic but I am. I enjoyed your post and did not see anything that I could disagree with.

I have often used the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution. Werner von Braun used the human eye as an argument against naturalistic evolution.

I have recommended somewhere on this forum the book Starlight and Time by physicist D. Russell Humphreys, PhD. He uses Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to reconcile the long distances that starlight travels with the 6 day [24 hour] creation. The math he includes in the Appendix is beyond me but the book itself is suitable for most with a technical background.

You also made one more observation that is correct. More and more scientists are beginning to realize that evolution is not a tenable answer.