To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Marcia:
JohnV, so you are essentially saying that God contradicts himself (barring copyist errors).

One can only have that view if one insists that the Bible is 100% inerrant fact. Scripture doeesn't make this claim, so there's no scriptural requirement for Christians to hold this view.

The "100% inerrant fact" arguement is much like the KJVarguement: The KJV contains no errors, so if someone finds an error in the KJV, it must not be an error, because the KJV contains no errors. The similar arguement is that scripture has no factual discrepancies, so if someone finds a factual discrepancy, it must not be a factual discrepancy, because scripture contains no factual discrepancies.

 

[gb93433]

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

Reading the gospels is much lie two people looking at the same card with one side black and the other white. It is the same card from two entirely different vantage points and purposes. Each of the gospels were written with very different purposes in mind.

For example if one talks to a young child about the gospel and then a skeptic you would hear two very different conversations. It is not one right and the other wrong. They are both right.

To better understand the differences in the gospels one must realize that you cannot interpret in light of our vantage point in the jet age but it must be done within the context and purposes of the NT writers and culture.

 

[Johnv]

Yes, gb93433, very good point.

 

[James_Newman]

Just my 2 cents here...

1Cor 4
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

If God has not revealed something to us through His word, we can not know it is a fact. As a matter of fact!

1Cor 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Now I realize these verses are not speaking of creation, but the principle is there. If God has revealed something to us, we can accept God's word as fact, and no other proof is needed due to the veracity of the witness. God can not lie. When God says something, it is true. If we have any outside evidence that suggests the opposite, we should take it on faith that the evidence is being interpretted incorrectly, or that it is really no evidence at all...

Sometimes what we see with our eyes may be appear to be in direct opposition to what is the truth.

2Kings 6
15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

There is nothing in scripture that suggests we must make scripture conform to our meager understanding of the world around us. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more we find out that we don't understand the universe at all. There are some basic principles that we have found allow us to predict results in a fairly consistant manner. So we call them 'natural laws' and suggest that God must abide by them?? If there is such a thing as a 'natural law' then it was ordained by God and as it's creator He is no more subject to it than He is to our will. The bible is full of instances where God overrides a natural law to accomplish His end, we generally refer to these as miracles. And I suppose that the word miracle carries a connotation with it that God just did the impossible! Impossible for who? Us, thats who. What is impossible for God? Nothing.

Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

We do not understand anything about the things which we suppose ourselves to have become so intelligent about. We can look through a piece of glass at the sky, and now we imagine that we could look back in time to watch God create the universe, if only we could build a big enough telescope. But can we see this through our telescope?

Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

The entire universe that we can observe with our mere mortal eyes exists inside of God! This is true, so why can't we see it? If we cannot see what is true, why should we expect that what we think we see is always true?

1 Corinthians 10:12
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

I don't know that there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is a name that I use to describe a principle by which two bodies appear to attract one another according to my eye. How do I know that when I jump, God doesn't push me back down to the ground each time, just to make sure I don't get into trouble? All I know for sure, is that I can fall.

 

[Marcia]

JohnV, have you looked at any of the links I posted, are you going to????

 

[Marcia]

Posted by JohnV
One can only have that view if one insists that the Bible is 100% inerrant fact. Scripture doeesn't make this claim, so there's no scriptural requirement for Christians to hold this view.

See the thread in this forum started by Matt Black.

One does not have to have a verse saying the scriptures are inerrant. If they are not inerrant(barring copyist and translator errors), then God is not perfect or he did not inspire the scriptures.

The resurrection accounts do not contradict -- they have apparent contradictions and there are many responses and explanations if you would bother to read just a few.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Marcia:
JohnV, have you looked at any of the links I posted, are you going to????

The links rationalize (as per my circular reasong post), but don't adequately explain, the discrepancies I listed. Perhaps you could, from the data on thos links, reply to each of my discrepancies one by one.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

Consider that God chose to use four different men to write four different gospel accounts at four different times. Why would we expect them to be word for word the same?

Like it or not this was the vehicle of choice for God. He could have made four stone gospel tablets all at once but he didn't.

Besides the gospels line up remarkably well considering their differences in provenance.

There are no doctrinal inconsistencies at all. If two gospels describe an event slightly differently so what? They each describe it and its significance for Christ's ministry. Remember the gospels are documents of witness, not biographies.

Why didn't Luke write about the time that Jesus and Peter were skipping rocks across the Jordan and talking about favorite foods? Because that's not relevant for us - those kinds of details are mundane for the purpose of the gospels.

As such it is not "error" if the details of events differ slightly here and there.

 

[Marcia]

Charles,

I do not expect the gospels to be word for word the same. Why did you say that to me?

I do not think the accounts contradict. I do not think there are factual errors. If I did, I would throw out my Bible and question my faith today.

I have been challenged over and over by unbelievers coming to my site about the truth of the Bible, where it came from, etc. That is their no. 1 challenge. I've had to look at a lot of things, including the alleged contradictions, and I've had to respond to these people. I've also dealt with this in seminary classes. So it is not something I've taken lightly or dismissed.

There are responses to these apparent contradictions. The skeptic sites have been thriving on this like crazy and people take their word for it. But as I showed in the links I posted, there are responses to this.

If I have to say to an unbeliever that God made mistakes in His word, what kind of witness is that? If the Bible is not true in a minor account (barring copyist errors), then how can it be true in major areas? That is what an unbeliever would think and I wouldn't blame them.

Going from an unbeliever for so many years and scofffing at those who believed the Bible to being actually saved while reading the Bible makes me take Heb 4.12 seriously. God's word is living and active; the Bible is not just another book

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

I too was a skeptic who laughed at the "fundies".

Even though deep inside I wanted to be able to believe the Bible was true I saw too many inconsistencies (Kings and Chronicles disagree on 4,000 vs 40,000 etc). I saw the "apologists" making up tenuous schemes each time to rationalize the "error" away. If Josh McDowell or John Ankerberg could cast just a little doubt on the facts then all the Christians could grab at that so as not to worry that the Bible was a fake.

Thankfully I realized that this was not the way to "apologize" for the Bible. What I'm saying - and it pertains to Genesis 1 as well as to the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts is that we as humans decide what interpretation is correct and then we stamp inerrancy on it too!

Like the literal Genesis 1. There are many reasons, textual, literary, cultural etc to see this as a theological epic and not as a literal account. But this is NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED. We're taught to believe what has been traditionally taught and THEN do the research!

Science suggests an old earth so what do we do? We, without batting an eyelash, vilify science and talk about those who value the wisdom of men over God - not even thinking that maybe our insistence on a literal Genesis is the "error", not Genesis itself (God forbid) or scientific knowledge.

WE decide what scripture says instead of letting it speak for itself. Like I said I have no problem challenging traditional doctrine if it means being true to the real meaning of God's word.

 

[Daniel David]

Chuckles, Genesis 1 was written to describe the origin of everything. It is a historic section that sets the ground work for the rest of Scripture.

Your theological understanding in this issue is as weak as Johns. You fail to grasp that a non-literal view of the creation account (and subsequently the fall) completely distorts soteriology. Of course, this would explain the liberal view of salvation that you and John take.

I find it quite comical that you could insist that there are cultural reasons for not taking a literal view. Yeah. You probably know the culture of Moses' day real well. Actually you don't.

There is a level of faith involved that we accept at face value that the only witness to the events actually remembered how it happened.

Scholarship didn't happen a hundred years ago.

John, for you to equate inerrancy with the kjvo movement demonstrates the fact that you have misplaced the clue I sent to you. I will send another.

 

[Charles Meadows]

DD,

Hey stop stalking me!

"I find it quite comical that you could insist that there are cultural reasons for not taking a literal view. Yeah. You probably know the culture of Moses' day real well. Actually you don't."

Yes DD I do. I've read plenty from all points of view, conservative, liberal, Jewish etc. I'm well familar with secondary Jewish literature and can read Hebrew without the dreaded Strong's numbers and transliterations.

Evidently all YOU can do is make rude remarks. Try actually addressing some issues in my posts or in JohnV's.

And in all seriousness, do you actually try to be as offensive as possible? Is that how Jesus acted? If I were a lost person looking at your posts from a distance I would that most all "Christians" ARE simply judgmental hypocrites.

You should at least try to be a better witness.

 

[Daniel David]

I did address the points. If Genesis 1-11 isn't literal history, the rest of Scripture becomes meaningless parabolic nonsense of which no one can actually know what is and isn't true.

While you might find warmth at night in being smarter than God, I will take the words of Christ as having meaning that is absolute and knowable.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"If Genesis 1-11 isn't literal history, the rest of Scripture becomes meaningless parabolic nonsense of which no one can actually know what is and isn't true."

If Genesis 1 isn't literal then scripture is NONSENSE? You really have faith in God's power!

So if the geologists are right your world comes crashing down. That's weak-minded. I know that scripture is God's word to us whether the earth is old or young. And I will not stick my head in the sand everytime scientific discovery disagrees with one of our traditional doctrines.

While you might find warmth at night in being smarter than God, I will take the words of Christ as having meaning that is absolute and knowable.

Now DD - smarter than God?



Smarter than alot of men anyway.

And I'm glad you'll take the words of Christ. Now why don't you actually read them and apply them. The average lost person I know is a far better witness than you typically display here.

If you disagree with someone's point then argue it reprove it. You seem to prefer to throw out words like "liberal" and "pathetic", while giving little substantive rebuttal.

OK go to your room now!

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Charles Meadows
Even though deep inside I wanted to be able to believe the Bible was true I saw too many inconsistencies (Kings and Chronicles disagree on 4,000 vs 40,000 etc). I saw the "apologists" making up tenuous schemes each time to rationalize the "error" away. If Josh McDowell or John Ankerberg could cast just a little doubt on the facts then all the Christians could grab at that so as not to worry that the Bible was a fake.

Thankfully I realized that this was not the way to "apologize" for the Bible.

Charles, I know you are smart so I am hoping you know that apologetics does not mean apologizing for anything but comes from a word for defending.

As far as the numbers in Kings and Chronicles go, there are copyist errors that account for most of the number discrepancies. Other discrepancies come about because of the way it was counted as to when someone became king, etc.

It seems from your posts here and elsewhere on this topic, that you have come across people who believe the Bible is true simply because they want to believe it. Have you not dealt with people who have been challenged on these "errors" and have dealt with them? Why do you think people are making things up to explain the discrepancies? Why can't you accept the explanations -- they make perfect sense.

The Gen 1 thing is another issue. I've posted on that before. How does that relate to error in the Bible? Are you saying there is error in Gen 1 or are you just saying that Gen 1 should not be taken literally?

 

[Bro. James]

Extent of infallibility and inerrancy:

Is a bit of a misnomer--kind of like saying, "How omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is God". Such things have no degree.

Modern day "higher textual criticism" has confused a large number "scholars" and those who are lead of them(students). Satan has used this scholarly confusion to deceive many.

The Word of God is without error.

The fallibility of man is obvious in everything he does--including translation of Holy Writ.

God has spoken--His Word is available in many languages--including English.

God said what He meant and meant what He said. Whether we believe Him or not changes not this truth. See: The Flood, Plagues of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah. This is not allegory, myth and legend--it really happened--God did it--just like He said He would.

The biggest reason many people do not understand The Word of God is that they have not been "born from above"--they are like the Ethiopian Eunuch--in The Word without "spiritual discernment".
We are without excuse regarding the Revelation of God. See Romans Ch. 1, then see the next four chapters. See also John Ch. 3.

Are we having difficulty with "omni"?

Selah,

Bro James

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

I believe Genesis 1 in nonliteral. Why? Because it is written in the style of prior near eastern epic and because the earth seems very unlikely to be 6-10,000 years old. I don't begrudge anyone who does believe in a young earth and a literal Genesis 1. I think the desire to trust God's word over men is ample justification for this position.

God has allowed us to learn so much about the earth and its science. As such I find no problem in "theologizing" Genesis 1, especially since there are so many literary and textual reasons to do so. Like I said if being true to the INTENDED meaning of the text means thinking outside the box.

So - no - there are no errors in Genesis 1, only errors in the theology of those who insist on a 20th century western reading of a 4000 year old eastern narrative.

Regarding the other "errors". I still maintain there are no mistakes in the Bible. But I tend to define biblical truth in the same was JohnV does. God ordained different men to write the Bible - at different times. If the chronicler and the author of Kings describe something slightly differently that is of no consequence - that is PAR FOR THE COURSE for the human vehicle God chose in making the Bible. The 4000 vs 40000 may well be a copyist error - but that's stil an ERROR.

That's why I'm not a fan of the McDowell/Ankerberg style of apologetics. McDowell seems to approach an apparent conflict by saying, "OK let's find some possible way that these two passages can both be literally true." Then we are taught to cling to this as our defense, no matter how unlikely or forced it seems.

So that's my 2 cents worth. The primary message of the Bible is theological. Small differences in reporting of events are but actuarial details.

Again Marcia - I want to be TRUE to the Bible - even if it crosses many men!

 

[Daniel David]

One's view of inerrancy is a direct reflection on one's view of God.

The liberals need a less than perfect God.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"One's view of inerrancy is a direct reflection on one's view of God."

It is YOUR tenuous view of inerrancy that limits God. Did you not say that if Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally then scripture is "parabolic nonsense"?

 

[Daniel David]

My view is consistent with the way Christ treated the creation account. I have already posted the text.

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

Give me one reason to accept Gen. 1 as non-literal that doesn't deal with science (because I can list scientists who disagree with your scientists).