To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[Johnv]

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

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Marcia, check out the differences in the gospels between the discovery of the empty tomb.

Why, do you think they contradict each other?

From
http://www.nonak.com/contractions_of_bible.htm
The four Gospels contain hopeless contradictions according to skeptics. If the four accounts of certain events were placed in parallel columns, however, these seemingly differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of the events rather than refute them.

If all four of The Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with the exact same details, one should be suspicious of the authenticity. One would wonder why all four writers did not simply attach their names as co-authors of each account. This, obviously, isn’t the case since none of the four authors give all of the details of the blessed resurrection that transpired.

Matthew is the only author who records the first appearance of the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance of Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke and only John records the appearance of CHRIST in the upper room when Thomas was absent as well as the appearance on the Sea of Galilee.

If the differences concerned the main points of the story, one would justify doubt but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, so called differences of insignificance do not subtract from it’s validity.

 

[Marcia]

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

It should be noted that no details in all four accounts flatly deny each other. In some plausible ways, they correlate to bring a bigger and clearer picture. The variation in detail the different writers choose to include in the resurrection narratives consist of incidental things which, in no way, jeopardize the main plot of the story.

One seemingly contradictive account concerns the time that the women came to the tomb. Related differently, Mark has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, yet, John states that Mary came to the tomb while it was still dark.

In John, the Greek tells us that it was early dark (proia skotia) which means darkest just prior to daybreak. Mark tells us it was daybreak (proia).

The women had to walk quite a distance so possibly they began their journey at the point of darkness before daybreak and arrived at the tomb at daybreak.

Another passage concerns the angels who were at the tomb. Mark and Matthew tell us one angel addressed the women while Luke and John say there were two Angels present.

This argument may be destroyed when it is found that Matthew and Mark do not say that only one angel was present but only that one angel spoke.

 

[Marcia]

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:

Although at a first glance, John has Mary setting off alone, she uses the all important plural "we". It is only by reading the other gospels that we discover why, and who was with her.


Yet John still records her use of "we" because that it how he remembers it. If John had simply been making things up he had gone along, he would have written "I" in Mary’s report, not "we".
This also explains why Mary did not mention the angels when she spoke to John. Again, we need to look at the details that the other gospel writers provide; Matthew reports the initial descent of the angel, only seen by the Roman guards. Mark and Luke report that when the women arrived, the angels were inside the tomb. So when did Mary turn back? According to John, when she saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. And when was that? Mark provides the answer: ‘When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance’ (Mark 16:4). By reading all the gospel accounts, we have the complete picture:

Arriving at the edge of the garden, the women look up from a distance and see the stone has been rolled back the tomb.
Mary jumps to the obvious conclusion, and runs back to Peter and John in Jerusalem.
The other women continued to the tomb, and went on inside where they encountered the angels.
Not only do these accounts fit together perfectly, but we can see why, for John, it is important that Mary Magdalene did turn back and race back to Jerusalem. It was her report that led to him personally visiting the tomb and experiencing the renewal of his faith. To the other three gospel writers, it was a minor detail, since Mary, like the other four women, could later report seeing both the angels and the risen Lord Jesus.

...At a casual glance, it seems that there might be a contradiction in the accounts over the angels. After all:

Matthew mentions just one angel (28:2)
Mark refers to a man dressed in white (16:5)
Luke’s account speaks of two men (24:4)
John records two angels (20:12)
Firstly, it is important to note that the Bible nowhere portrays angels as winged figures carrying harps! Rather, they are always portrayed simply as men (e.g. Joshua 5:13-15). Thus, for example, there is no contradiction when Luke speaks of "men" (24:4) yet later records Cleopas speaking of a "vision of angels" (24:23). And there is no contradiction between the gospel accounts which speak of "men in white" and those that speak of "angels".

Neither is the number of angels a problem, despite the attempts by some sceptics to highlight this as an apparent contradiction. The question has simply arisen because Matthew and Mark mention one angel, whereas Luke and John both refer to two. However, unless the angels spoke in simultaneously, then it seems obvious that one was the spokesperson of the pair. Matthew and Mark may very well have been aware that angel who spoke had a companion. But all historians, whether sacred or secular, decide which details to record, and what secular historian would be pronounced unreliable for failing to mention that an important speaker had a companion with him or her? It is not vital to the account, and whether or not to mention it is simply a matter of personal choice.

Again, whilst the gospel writers record different parts of the angel’s speech, those parts fit together remarkably well. Even more surprising is that Luke and Mark seem fairly parallel on the parts up to the angel’s speech which Matthew omits, but on the speech itself it is Luke who differs and Matthew and Mark who are parallel. This is exactly what one might expect of three accounts which were independently compiled, yet drew on some of the same eye-witness reports.

There's more, those are just excerpts.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Science SUGGESTS earth is old.

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.

If this were not so then why do the VAST MAJORITY of scientists (not apologists with DMins) believe this to be so?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Wow. Well said Scott.

lacy

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Scott
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.

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.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I think Scott has this absolutely right.He expresses my thoughts far more eloquently than I could. Thankyou Scott.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Wow. Well said Scott.

lacy

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

 

[menageriekeeper]

 

[Charles Meadows]

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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.

 

[Bluefalcon]

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

 

[Plain Old Bill]

As time goes by we learn more and more. For this we can thank research scientist.
When I first joined the army back in "62" I took a course in electronics. We knew that an atom had 3 parts.Now we know an atom has many more than 3 parts. With DNA research we have learned that even the simplest life is very complex.The Universe has expanded (our knowledge of)thanks to astronomers.The chances of life comming to what we see before us today as a result of evolution just requires to many accidents.The stasticical probabilities for all of these accidents to bring us to where we are now are just incomprehensible.
To me evolution requires much more faith than I have.

Next every time new discoveries are made they tend to line up with what the Bible says the way the Bible represents it.While I admire scientists and am grateful for all of thier discoveries I do think they have a long way to go to catch up with God's Holy written Word.

I can hardly wait to get to heaven and get all of the answers to my questions.I'll be so much smarter then.

 

[TC]

Me to.

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Why, do you think they contradict each other?

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".

 

[Charles Meadows]

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!!

 

[Marcia]

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:

From
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html
Resurrection at first dawn
The women, coming with spices, find the sepulcher open and empty. Mary Magdalene returns to tell Peter and John
The other women, remaining, see two angels, who declare the Lord's resurrection.
Mary Magdalene returns to the sepulcher. Jesus reveals Himself to her. She reports to the disciples--First appearance
Jesus meets the women (Mary mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) on their return to the city--Second appearance
Peter and John find the sepulcher empty
Report of the guards to the chief priests, who bribe them
Jesus seen by Peter (Cephas, 1 Cor. 15: 5)--Third appearance
Seen by the two disciples on way to Emmaus--fourth appearance
Jesus appears to the ten, Thomas being absent--Fifth appearance
Evening of Sunday after Easter day. Jesus appears to them again, Thomas being present--Sixth appearance
The eleven go into Galilee, to a mountain appointed. Jesus appears, and commands them to teach all nations--Seventh appearance
Jesus shows Himself at the Sea of Tiberias--Eighth appearance. Charges Simon to feed His lambs, sheep, and young sheep
Seen of above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor. 15:6), probably along with the eleven-- Ninth appearance
He is seen by James, then by all the apostles (Acts 1: 3-8; 1 Cor. 15:7)--Tenth appearance.
(Ryrie Study Bible, ppp.1931-2)

Willingham
First: Mary Magdalene as she remained at the site of the tomb (John 20.11-17)
Second: to the other women who were also returning to the tomb (Matt 28.9-10)
Third: to Peter (Luke 24.34; I Cor 15.5)
Fourth: to the disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24.13-31)
Fifth: to the ten disciples (Luk 24.36-51; John 20.19-23)
Sixth: to the 11 disciples a week after the resurrection (John 20.26-29)
Seventh: to the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21.1-23)
Eight: to 500 (I Cor 15.6)
Ninth: to James, the Lord's brother (I Cor 15.7)
Tenth: to the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (Matt 28.16-20)
Eleventh: at the time of the Ascension (Luke 24.44-53; Acts 1.3-9)
Twelfth: to Stephen just prior to his martyrdom (Acts 7.55-56)
Thirteenth: to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.3-6; 22.6-11; 26.13-18)
Fourteenth: to Paul in Arabia (Gal 1.12-17)
Fifteenth: to Paul in the temple (Acts 9.26-27; cf. 22.17-21)
Sixteenth: to Paul while he was in prison in Caesarea (Acts 23.11)
Seventeenth: to the apostle John (Rev 1.12-20)
H.L. Willmington, The Complete Book of Bible Lists , Tyndale: 1987, p.168-169.

Murray Harris
After the actual resurrection had taken place, but before dawn, an earthquake occurred, an angel rolled away the stone from the entrance of the tomb, and the guards trembled and fled (Matt. 28:2-4).
As Sunday morning was dawning, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome approached the tomb, intending to anoint Jesus with the perfumed oil brought by other women who evidently set out later (see #7) . To their amazement they found the stone rolled away (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; John 20:1).
One or more of the women entered the tomb and announced that the body was not there (an inference from John 20:2, where Mary Magdalene does not simply say, "The stone has been taken away").
Mary Magdalene immediately returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed (John 20:2).
Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome saw an angel ( = "a young man" in Mark) inside the tomb who announced the resurrection and directed the women to tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (Matt. 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7).
These two women returned to the city without greeting anyone on the way, for their holy awe rendered them temporarily speechless (Matt.28:8; Mark 16:8).
Certain women from Galilee, along with Joanna (cf. Luke 8: 3), arrived at the tomb, carrying perfumed oil to anoint the body of Jesus. They met two "men" (= "angels"; cf. Luke 24:4, 23) and then returned to report the angels' message of the resurrection "to the Eleven and to all the rest" (Luke 24: 1-9,22-23) who had evidently now gathered together (c£ Matt.26: 56) .
Meanwhile, informed by Mary Magdalene, Peter and John (and others?; Luke 24:24) ran to the tomb (without meeting Mary and Salome), observed the grave-clothes, and returned home (John 20:3-10; and Luke 24: 12, if this is the correct textual reading).
Mary Magdalene followed Peter and John to the tomb, saw two angels inside, and then met Jesus (John 20: 11-17; cf Mark 16:9).
Mary Magdalene returned to inform the disciples that Jesus had risen (John 20:18; c£ Mark 16:10-11).
Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome met Jesus and were directed to tell his brethren to go to Galilee (Matt. 28:9-10).
The disciples had now had reports concerning the empty tomb or the resurrection from three sources (viz., Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the women from Galilee, Mary [and Salome]), but they refused to believe these reports (Luke 24:10-11; cf. Mark 16:11).
During the afternoon Jesus appeared to two disciples on the way to Emmaus. They then returned to Jerusalem to report the appearance to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:13-35; c£ Mark 16:12-13).
Jesus appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15 :5).
That evening Jesus appeared to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:33), Thomas being absent (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5; cf Mark 16:14).
One week later Jesus appeared to the Eleven, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29) .
Seven disciples had an encounter with Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21: 1-22).
The Eleven met Jesus on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; cf Mark 16:15-18).
Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (Luke 24:44-49; 1 Cor. 15:6).
He appeared to James (1 Cor. 15 :7) .
Immediately before his ascension, Jesus appeared to the Eleven near Bethany (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:7; cf Mark 16: 19-20).
(Murray Harris, TCQ:107ff)

 

[Marcia]

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.

Craig Blomberg:
"Finally, it is remarkable to observe how often the alleged contradictions among the gospels are cited without a discussion of the many proposed solutions which can fit them together in a very plausible and natural manner. John Wenham has quite recently devoted an entire book to a harmonization of the accounts and few of his proposals are entirely new. There is scarcely room to summarize all his main points, but in the case of the sample 'contradictions' mentioned above, one can offer the following brief replies: (a) angels generally appear in Scripture as men, and if one of the two were the primary spokesman, it would not be surprising if sometimes only he were mentioned; (b) it is likely that Jesus appeared to the eleven in Jerusalem, then later in Galilee when they had gone home after the Passover, and then once again in Jerusalem upon their return in preparation for the feast of Pentecost; (c) if Salome is both the 'mother of James and John' and the sister of Mary, Jesus' mother, there is no irreconcil- able problem with the lists of women; and (d) it is not unfair to describe the world as still rather dark at the first glimpse of morning daylight. The apparent discord among the gospels can be alleviated, but it must be admitted that any reconstruction of the events is speculative. "
(BLOM:102)

There is much more just on that one page.

There are other links, too, showing how the accounts do not contradict.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/Contra/resurrect.html

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/easter.html