To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Some scholars have pointed at the later place names of villages and cities as a basis for saying the Biblical text was written later; however, these could have been later interpolations by copyists.

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Bluefalcon, don't get so fired up! Please keep in mind these statements are from a paper I wrote for a seminary class in which I had to present various resposes from many people who responded to the claims of Higher Criticism. Give me a break, please!

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Phillip:
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.

What are you talking about?????

You are not reading the posts correctly. Where did I say such a thing??? Please read the posts carefully before you wrongly attribute something to me I did not say! I never said that Genesis is symbolic! In fact, I am debating this with Charles Meadows. Please re-read my posts!

 

[Marcia]

Charles, I asked you this question on p. 9:

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

You didn't answer it. Instead, you brought up a lot of stuff I did not bring up, such as a young earth and you went off into a speech that completely evaded the points I brought up. That is not helping your case at all, btw.

Can you please answer the question above? Thanks.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

"You didn't answer it. Instead, you brought up a lot of stuff I did not bring up, such as a young earth and you went off into a speech that completely evaded the points I brought up. That is not helping your case at all, btw."

Did you not read my post? Paragraph 4. I'll reiterate it. Metaphorical and allegorical are used to imply symbolism, often hidden symbolism unrelated to the actual entity in the case of allegory. The days of creation are clearly not symbolic of longer time periods; and I don't see the account as really symbolic at all.

And you have yet to address the points I have made.



Particularly the one about the arbitrariness of individual interpretations. I assert that in the case of the Genesis 1 writings the decision that they should be taken literally is just as arbitrary as my figurative Genesis 1.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

Did you not read my post? Paragraph 4. I'll reiterate it. Metaphorical and allegorical are used to imply symbolism, often hidden symbolism unrelated to the actual entity in the case of allegory. The days of creation are clearly not symbolic of longer time periods; and I don't see the account as really symbolic at all.

And you have yet to address the points I have made.



Particularly the one about the arbitrariness of individual interpretations. I assert that in the case of the Genesis 1 writings the decision that they should be taken literally is just as arbitrary as my figurative Genesis 1.

Yes, I read your post and it did not answer the question, or I didn't see it. You are saying it is figurative? What do you mean by that? So it's not literal, allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic, but it's figurative. Please explain what you mean.

I don't think my view of Gen 1 as literal is arbitrary at all (btw, I was not taught to see it this way -- the first churches I was in as a new believer, at a rather mature age which I choose not to disclose, were very liberal; I came to the conclusion on my own just because Gen 1 is quite clear as to what it says). It says what it says -- God created the world, and here is how he did it, and it was in 6 days. It's so direct and uncomplicated. It's not being arbitrary to believe it.

People who do not take Gen 1 literally need to explain which parts they don't take literally and why. You all are the ones who have 'splaining to do.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

" It says what it says -- God created the world, and here is how he did it, and it was in 6 days. It's so direct and uncomplicated. It's not being arbitrary to believe it. "

I'd agree completely if Genesis 1 were written in the last few centuries by an Anglo-american writer. But the original writer was a middle easterner from 4000 years ago. Were his original listeners not ancient middle easterners? I'd wager not many of them wasted alot of sleep wondering about the age of the earth or about rock layers. The literature from this period reveals alot of epic type stories, and proto-midrashic type stuff. Would not God (and Moses) have perhaps used this type of language to communicate to the Israelites? I mean, isn't the big point of the account the fact that YHWH in His self-sufficiency (unlike other creation stories) made the world?

Yes that seems a little different for us in the 21st century - but aren't we supposed to to study to show ourselves approved?

And by figurative I mean that the 6 days are part of a story intended to teach. The significance is not that of 6 literal days but of showing in a stepwise fashion (using the good ole number 7) that God created everything. They are part of this imagery. They are not symbolic of longer time periods or of hidden things. I would agree with you (or I assume you agree) that seeing the days as representative of longers periods of time is textually and literarily very unrealistic and is to be rejected.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

" It says what it says -- God created the world, and here is how he did it, and it was in 6 days. It's so direct and uncomplicated. It's not being arbitrary to believe it. "

I'd agree completely if Genesis 1 were written in the last few centuries by an Anglo-american writer. But the original writer was a middle easterner from 4000 years ago. Were his original listeners not ancient middle easterners? I'd wager not many of them wasted alot of sleep wondering about the age of the earth or about rock layers. The literature from this period reveals alot of epic type stories, and proto-midrashic type stuff. Would not God (and Moses) have perhaps used this type of language to communicate to the Israelites? I mean, isn't the big point of the account the fact that YHWH in His self-sufficiency (unlike other creation stories) made the world?

Yes that seems a little different for us in the 21st century - but aren't we supposed to to study to show ourselves approved?

I don't think we can take the point of the account while believing it is not true. That's very deceitful; I don't believe in a deceitful, tricky God who tells me one thing but means another, or who wants to tell a nice story to one group of people that is not true for another group of people x number of years later.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

Well I guess we have to disagree here. I don't think it's deceitful at all. The middle eastern mindset is different than is ours. It just is.

Ask a Bedouin tribal chieftain how old he is. He might say 80 (really being 64 1/2) and 7 years later might say 100.

Is he lying to you or do those numbers have meaning to him beyond our cursory use of them as mere year markers?

The point is that cultures are different. We as American Christians seem to want to assume that the Bible was written just for us and not for anyone else.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

Well I guess we have to disagree here. I don't think it's deceitful at all. The middle eastern mindset is different than is ours. It just is.

Ask a Bedouin tribal chieftain how old he is. He might say 80 (really being 64 1/2) and 7 years later might say 100.

Is he lying to you or do those numbers have meaning to him beyond our cursory use of them as mere year markers?

Yes, the mideast mindset is different, but don't you think God knew that many, many people outside the mideast mindset would be reading the Bible? God was writing for all men of all cultures, even if it was originally to mideastern people. The Bible transcends time and culture.

The point is that cultures are different. We as American Christians seem to want to assume that the Bible was written just for us and not for anyone else.

I don't assume that at all, especially since my first language was German and my first school was a French school on an isolated Pacific island. Most of my childhood was abroad with a father who spoke about 7 languages (5 fluently) and a mother who spoke 3. I never got quite over the culture shock of moving back here.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I think that God has put the Bible together in such a way as to make it accessible to all times and all generations.

By way of example, I think of the story of the temptation in the garden. At the time the story was first presented to the Israelites, they did not have a developed notion of who Satan was and that there were powers of evil against us. And so, in the story of Genesis, we have a talking animal story. The serpent, of course.

Notice it nowhere says it was satan that inhabited and directed a snake, or assumed the appearance of a snake, or anything like that. It just says it was a serpent.

But as theological views became more sophisticated and people came to be able to understand there is a spiritual enemy we face . . . people go back and read into the story - aha! That was Satan all along!

Kind of a non literal interpretation we all agree with!

We see the same thing with the Genesis narrative of creation. It starts out as being seven literal days and is understood that way for a long time. But as men develop more and more understanding of the cosmos and the history of life, we find we can map our understanding into the scripture.

What person can fail to consider the origin of the universe as a tremendous expansion of bare energy and fail to see a shiver of recognition from the scriptural words "And God said, let there be light?"

The literal statements of Genesis One refer plainly to single days. And yet God caused His word to include the idea that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. How perfectly that allows us to assimilate the words of scripture with our modern knowledge.

God has done a marvelous job of preparing His word for use in all generations, even those of us with modern knowledge. It isn't right to insist we give up the modern knowledge He has led us to find in accordance with Daniel's prophecy in order to accept Genesis.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

If the Genesis creation account is figurative then these places must also be figurative as well, Charles?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[Charles Meadows]

Blue Falcon,

"and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Did God REALLY get tired and need to be refreshed?

Probably not! The six days is part of the story and is repeated over and over in reference to it. Not necessarily literal.

 

[av1611jim]

To rest;
To quit a particular activity.
Charles, your objection is absurd and you know it.

In His service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

To the subject of the Op.
Either the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant, perfectly pure and without error or it isn't.
If you say it isn't then you have absolutley no basis for your faith.
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
It is God's word or not. If it IS God's words then it is perfectly without error or contradiction.
If you are looking for errors, then you are by default looking to impugn God himself.

That is the nuts and bolts of the whole issue.
Agree or disagree, that is your choice. But your choice has no bearing on the Truth.

In His service;
Jim

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I am wondering how much reading of the young earth material the old earth people have read.I see people deeply dug into thier positions but I am not seeing any balance in study.
Most young earth people have covered much old earth information in order to discuss thier young earth view intelligently.
The information in a single DNA molocule suggests a designer and not a multitude of accidents.The lack of about 200 feet of meteoric dust on the earth suggests to me the earth is not billions of years old.The earths magnetic field has a half life of 1400 years, if the earth was billions or millions of years old the earth would have almost no magnetic field.the amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere suggests a young earth.Evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics.We need to overcome these problems to account for an old earth.Not to mention the fact that no missing link has ever been discovered. For these reasons alone I believe in a young earth.
A good quick look at this subject may be found in Wilmington's Guide to the Bible pages 13 thru 35. There is much material to be found on the net about young earth science if one is willing to look.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

" Either the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant, "

So who decides what inerrant means. I'm suggesting that neither Moses nor God intended that the whole passage be taken literally.

Does Genesis not say that God created lights for the sky, one to govern day and the other night?

Does this mean that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa? Because in medieval times people believed just that - and called Galileo a heretic for suggesting otherwise. But using our God-given brains we determined that the earth revolves around the sun. How is it that when evidence comes up that suggests an old earth that we automatically assumed that it is evil and wrong, without even considering that it is WE who have misread God's word?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bill,

" I am wondering how much reading of the young earth material the old earth people have read."

I personally have read quite alot. I wanted to be a young-earther but I simply could not believe the presentations of the scientific data they gave.

I see people deeply dug into thier positions but I am not seeing any balance in study.

I've read everything from conservative fundamentalist to liberal evolutionist. I would also counter your claim with the observation that most literlists don't read any liberal or even moderate works.

The problem for me is that the science does not make a young earth seem likely. Each example you gave has another side to it. Like the thermodynamics thing - the presence of the sun renders this NOT a closed system.

I have a degree in biology and actually taught evolutionary biology (when I was lost) to the first year students. I find most of the new earth explanations to be very poor, and not credible to anyone with much formal scientific training.

That's not to say that the old earth theories are proven, they are just theories. But they are the most plausible theories we have given our data.

And just because I believe in an old earth doesn't make me an evolutionist.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


The problem for me is that the science does not make a young earth seem likely.

Why should that be a problem? As has been mentioned many times in many ways, "the appearance" of maturity is inherent in a creative act.

Natural history, as opposed to applied sciences, depends on conjectures based on the observations of how things are now. It is by nature interpretive demonstrated in no small part by the number of times scientific convention has changed on many elements of history.

I cited 2 Peter 3 before... Peter has a specific warning for those who believe that they will not face judgment because "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation". He then goes on to use the Flood as a specific example of how God has interacted directly within creation to execute judgment.

I asked Craig and UT before but they didn't answer so I will ask you. Do you create things fully "mature" and ready for your intended purpose? If I assumed that something you had created instead solely resulted from natural forces, would I have to assume extraordinary circumstances and time for those highly improbable events to come about... just like scientists dominated by the evolution and materialistic paradigm?

I find most of the new earth explanations to be very poor, and not credible to anyone with much formal scientific training.

That's not to say that the old earth theories are proven, they are just theories. But they are the most plausible theories we have given our data.

What is your premise? Is it biblically based or based in a man made philosophy?

My problem with most evolution apologists (not referring to you) is that they want to jump into interpretation of data without ever proving the validity and in most cases the exclusivity they assume for their premises.

I used to concern myself with alot of the creationists proofs vs evolution's proofs. But when you ask "why" 7 times in this debate you always come back to the foundational assumptions and premises. Even leaders in evolution theory have acknowledged that at the head waters of evolution are assumptions that are purely philosophical in nature.

Until someone shows me the objective validity of evolution's core assumptions, I am not willing to take the next step of consideration.

The two that seem to be ringing up here recently are that only naturalistic explanations are credible and that the appearance of age in a created thing means that it is old (or else the creator is a liar).

No one has ever adequately answered my first two objections to evolution or day-age creationism:
- It contradicts the direct statements and language of the Bible numerous times.

- It does not have sound, proven premises nor do its assumptions pass the test of logic, ie. no prime cause.

BTW, Charles, I can't discern what your position actually is.

[ December 07, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Charles you certainly are entitled to your views for whatever reason. I have no doubt as to your salvation and belief in Christ, to me that is the most important thing.
On the other we can politely agree to disagree. I will say however as time goes by science lines up more and more with the Bible.Cities and civilizations which we did not think existed 100 years ago have been uncovered by archeological scientists. The Bible knew the earth was round all along. I do know in all things I will trust God's Word.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
I am wondering how much reading of the young earth material the old earth people have read.I see people deeply dug into thier positions but I am not seeing any balance in study.
Most young earth people have covered much old earth information in order to discuss thier young earth view intelligently.
The information in a single DNA molocule suggests a designer and not a multitude of accidents.

Lets talk about the information in the DNA, since you brought it up. In our DNA there is a crippled version of the gene that makes vitamin C. Since it doesn't work, we have to eat some regularly or die, and men have died for lack of vitamin c. Strangely, the exact same defective gene is found in most of the primates.

The fact that the defect is the same would be easily explained if we all had a common ancestor that had the defect once. On the other hand, if the defect occurred accidently over numerous times (at least once for every seperately created species) , it wouldn't always happen the same exact way!

So it turns out you're wrong about what DNA suggests. Hmmm.

The lack of about 200 feet of meteoric dust on the earth suggests to me the earth is not billions of years old.

An old canard. Metoric dust isn't that common and the earth has ways of disposing of dust, including subduction and concretion. Ever heard of sandstone? Sedemintary rocks?

The earths magnetic field has a half life of 1400 years, if the earth was billions or millions of years old the earth would have almost no magnetic field.

Another old canard. The earth's magnetic field is maintained by the dynomo of the earth's rotation and the liquid metal conducting core. The formulas have all been worked out and the earth's magnetic field is not only sustained, it oscillates, flipping over at chaotically random intervals, of about half a million years or thereabouts.

the amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere suggests a young earth.

helium 4 is continuously generated by radioactive decay - they call it the alpha particle.

Evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics.

It does not, and nobody has ever succeeded in proving it does.

Are you somehow under the impression that life isn't messy, but is orderly? When God sent Adam out into the chaotic world outside where entropy reigned, Adam faced THORNS and WEEDS and DISEASE - all messy, chaotic instances of increased entropy brought about by LIFE.