To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Now back to the original question. To what extent is the Bible infallible or inerrant?

From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:

Fact: That which actually exists; reality; truth.

Truth: True or actual state of a matter. Conformity with fact or reality.

From OldRegular

The Bible, in its original manuscripts, is inerrant and infallible in all it addresses.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

All this talk about the perfection of original manuscripts is irrelavent. We have no original manuscripts so how can we know? Sounds like Mormons and their Golden Plates.

Why don't all of us just read Genesis 1 and then read Genesis 2. Don't play with the wording, just read both chapters. Only the intentionally blind will fail to see two different stories with two different orders of creation.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

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.

Why is it sad to take stories about magic fruit and talking snakes as symbolism, and it is not sad to take stories from Revelation as symbolism?

Genesis three is an ancient near-eastern story about the nature of sin, not neccessarily its origin, and it makes a whole lot more sense to interpret it that way, than to insist it be taken literally. What is sad is the condecending attitude you have toward a different point of view than your own.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Why is it sad to take stories about magic fruit and talking snakes as symbolism, and it is not sad to take stories from Revelation as symbolism?

Genesis three is an ancient near-eastern story about the nature of sin, not neccessarily its origin, and it makes a whole lot more sense to interpret it that way, than to insist it be taken literally. What is sad is the condecending attitude you have toward a different point of view than your own. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, DavidFWhite,

Just to clarify, Phillip had it wrong when he says that I think the serpent was a symbol. I do not believe that.

Gen is not just a near eastern story; it's the word of God. If we can't believe it it a narrative the way it's told, but that it's just a fable or allegory, then what other parts of the Bible are fable or allegory, and how does one decide?

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Why is it sad to take stories about magic fruit and talking snakes as symbolism, and it is not sad to take stories from Revelation as symbolism?

Genesis three is an ancient near-eastern story about the nature of sin, not neccessarily its origin, and it makes a whole lot more sense to interpret it that way, than to insist it be taken literally. What is sad is the condecending attitude you have toward a different point of view than your own. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, DavidFWhite,

Just to clarify, Phillip had it wrong when he says that I think the serpent was a symbol. I do not believe that.

Gen is not just a near eastern story; it's the word of God. If we can't believe it it a narrative the way it's told, but that it's just a fable or allegory, then what other parts of the Bible are fable or allegory, and how does one decide? </font>[/QUOTE]It is a story in a collection of literature we call the Old Testament, written in the near-east, in ancient times. It can still be the word of God, but that does not make it something it is not. It is an ancient near-eastern text and it is a story about human nature. The way you tell what kind of literature you are reading is to recognize the nature of it and how it compares with other literature from its time, in this example, other ancient near-eastern texts.

There is a major collection of ancient near eastern texts in a book called, "Ancient Near-Eastern Texts." You ought to go to a college library and find a copy and spend some time with it. And it is not fable or allegory. The best literary term I can think of would be parable, and parables do not have to be literally true to teach truth.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by DavidFWhite
It is a story in a collection of literature we call the Old Testament, written in the near-east, in ancient times. It can still be the word of God, but that does not make it something it is not. It is an ancient near-eastern text and it is a story about human nature. The way you tell what kind of literature you are reading is to recognize the nature of it and how it compares with other literature from its time, in this example, other ancient near-eastern texts.

There is a major collection of ancient near eastern texts in a book called, "Ancient Near-Eastern Texts." You ought to go to a college library and find a copy and spend some time with it. And it is not fable or allegory. The best literary term I can think of would be parable, and parables do not have to be literally true to teach truth.

I have read some Near Eastern literature and I do not find that Genesis is in that style at all. I have also read a book on the literary style of the OT. Charles Meadows and I discussed this topic earlier on this very thread starting around page 8 or 9.

I think saying that Gen is a "collection of stories" and saying it is the word of God is a contradiction. Either God gave these words to the authors of the books or He did not. The theories proposed by the Higher Criticism School were based in a presupposition that there is no supernatural God, and were just that -- theories --and many have been refuted.

There is no indication at all from the text that Genesis is a parable. You can't just call it a parable; there has to be evidence for it. There is none.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

" There is no indication at all from the text that Genesis is a parable. You can't just call it a parable; there has to be evidence for it. There is none. "

There certainly IS evidence. Otherwise why would many of us advocate this? You have asserted (partially correctly) that Genesis is not patterned after Enuma Elish and other near eastern literature. Genesis' portrayal of YHWH's power far outstrips anything else in any other literature. THAT MUCH is certainly true. But the overall imagery is in fact similar. That simply cannot be disputed.

What I keep saying is that based on the way Moses wrote the creation account we would NOT be expected to take it literally, especially as it pertains to periods of time. Perhaps it is the literalist who must explain why he/she insists of this type of interpretation.

If it were not for the whole evolution thing of the last few hundred years perhaps Christians would not be so afraid to actually use logical reasoning to approach these passages instead of by default retreating to the old traditional stance and not even considering anything else.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Marcia:

Your response is evident that you are not familiar at all with even the most basic knowledge of Biblical Scholarship. Genesis 1-11 is a collection of stories, some definitely written as historical narrative and others in the ancient near-eastern style of etiology, a fancy word for saga, legend, even myth.I prefer to use the word parable because everyone knows parables do not have to be literally true to convey truth. But sagas, legends, and myths are literary styles that can be used to convey truth.Jesus used parables all the time, so why not the writer of Genesis? Certainly you are not so uneducated as to think if a story is not literally true it cannot teach religious truth.

Marcia, just take my challenge and read Genesis chapter one, then read chapter two. In chapter one the animals are made first, then God makes man and woman, male and female in His image. In chapter two he makes the animals after he makes the man in order to find a suitable partner for the man. Finding none, He causes Adam to fall asleep, takes a rib, and makes Eve. Two stories. Two different orders of creation. A literal reading will not allow us to rewrite the texts to suit our doctrines. I suggest you be more honest with the texts you are trying to defend by forcing them into your doctrinal position.

Lovingly,
Dave

 

[Daniel David]

The simple, truthful, correct answer to the original question is this:

As inerrant and infallible as God is.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The simple, truthful, correct answer to the original question is this:

As inerrant and infallible as God is.

Absolute Heresy to put anything, even the Scriptures, on an equal footing with God. This doctrine is the Fundamentalist Heresy, the heresy most destructive to genuine Christianity that begins with simple faith in Jesus, not an inerrant book. The idea that we have to have a perfect book in order to have a perfect God is absolute nonsense, and requires those of us who are not afraid to see what is front of us to point it out to all who are not afraid to think.

I really don't care in the least what a bunch of Fundamentalists think of me, but I do care for those they drive away from the love of God in Christ, by requiring them to worship at the alters of ignorance, before they can feel secure in their faith.

 

[Daniel David]

David, on what grounds do you say that genuine Christianity begins with simple faith in Jesus? How do you know that it doesn't also include faith in an inerrant book?

 

[Marcia]

Enuma Elish (the first little part of it)

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....
Anu, their son,...
Ansar and Anu...
And the god Anu...
Nudimmud, whom his fathers, his begetters.....
Abounding in all wisdom,...'
He was exceeding strong...
He had no rival -
Thus were established and were... the great gods.
But Tiamat and Apsu were still in confusion...
They were troubled and...
In disorder...
Apru was not diminished in might...
And Tiamat roared...
She smote, and their deeds...
Their way was evil...
Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,
Cried unto Mummu, his minister, and said unto him:
"O Mummu, thou minister that rejoicest my spirit,
Come, unto Tiamut let us go!
So they went and before Tiamat they lay down,
They consulted on a plan with regard to the gods, their sons.
Apsu opened his mouth and spake,
And unto Tiamut, the glistening one, he addressed the word:
...their way...
By day I can not rest, by night I can not lie down in peace.
But I will destroy their way, I will...
Let there be lamentation, and let us lie down again in peace."
When Tiamat heard these words,
She raged and cried aloud...

Does not sound like Genesis to me.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
Jesus used parables all the time, so why not the writer of Genesis? Certainly you are not so uneducated as to think if a story is not literally true it cannot teach religious truth.

I suppose disagreeing with you would prove I was uneducated? Not only is this illogical, but it's an ad hominem. Putting that in there does not help your case nor your credibility.

When Jesus used parables, the Bible usually points this out directly, as in "He told them a parable. . ." or it's clear from the context. For example, no names are given in parables. Yet in Genesis, we have the names Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, and others. Adam is referred to in the lineage of Jesus in the NT.

Marcia, just take my challenge and read Genesis chapter one, then read chapter two. In chapter one the animals are made first, then God makes man and woman, male and female in His image. In chapter two he makes the animals after he makes the man in order to find a suitable partner for the man. Finding none, He causes Adam to fall asleep, takes a rib, and makes Eve. Two stories. Two different orders of creation.

Guess what? I studied Genesis in seminary and my prof of OT, who also happens to teach Hebrew (and Greek) and Hermeneutics, believes Genesis is a literal story. He's a very smart man and has co-written books with Norman Geisler. Do you think all people who believe Genesis is literal are dummies or uneducated? That is what you imply.

We also learned about the style of Hebrew literature, which is reflected in the two accounts of the same creation story. Gen 2 is an inversion of Gen 1 in that it starts with the creation of man. Gen 2 is also puts the focus on man, the crown of God's creation (since man was created in the image of God).

The order is not an issue in Gen. 2 as it is in Gen 1; Gen 2 is the focus on man and is not giving the order of creation.

 

[Marcia]

[EE refers to Enuma Elish

From
http://www.tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html
EE records "successive generations of gods and goddesses" who are subject to typical weaknesses such as hunger, thirst, and sex drive; Genesis records but one God, though He had company of unspecified nature (Gen. 1:26), with no such weaknesses. The EE is a creation account to some extent, but most of it is devoted to describing a battle between the god Marduk (the "creator" as such) and Tiamat the goddess (who ends up being the raw material of creation), and to other non-creation issues, so that after tally, only about a third of it is on the subject of creation. EE played a political and cultic role in the Babylonian religion and explained Marduk's rise to chief god of Babylon; Genesis does not mention Israel, Jerusalem, or the Temple, and served no cultic function [Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 9; I would suggest that this points to the Genesis account being more original].

. . .All stories must start somewhere, and the ways in which Genesis differs from EE at the very beginning is quite significant. Genesis starts us "in the beginning", at a time-point which suggests nothing before. But EE and other Babylonian creation accounts start with words like, "on the day that" or "when" -- which do not specify a beginning. The Hebrew word here means "at the first" (Numbers 15:20 "Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering..."); the matching Hebrew word for the Babylonian record is not what is used. This feature "finds no parallels in the cosmogonies" of Babylon.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
EE also supposes a watery chaos in place, and this is where EE proponents had their biggest party. The word for "deep" here is tehowm, and EE proponents leapt upon the similarity of this word to the name of the Babylonia goddess Tiamat. In the EE, Tiamat was the water-goddess who was slain by Marduk and used to make the watery chaos. It was supposed that tehom was linguistically derived from Tiamat, thus proving borrowing.

Substantial differences, first of all, render this unlikely. Tiamat was only one of two water-deities involved in this story; the other was the water-god Apsu. Tiamat was salty water; Apsu was fresh water. Apsu, at any rate, has no parallel in Genesis at all, and the tehom is inanimate.

Of more import, the linguistic connection supposed by the critics could, if anything, only have gone in the opposite direction. The words are indeed from the same root (as are indeed, as Heidel points out, the German word for "blessed" (selig) and the English word "silly"!), but Heidel demonstrates at length that for tehowm to be derived from Tiamat is "grammatically impossible" based on the rules of Hebrew as we know them. The Hebrew tehowm has a masculine ending; Tiamat is feminine. A loan word from Babylonian to Hebrew would retain the feminine; we would not expect tehowm but tiama or teama. Hebrew would also not add the H unless it were found in the original word (i.e., it would have to have been Tihamat). Heidel's conclusion is that the two words probably go back to "a common Semitic form," rather than that one was derived from the other [100].

I can mention an observation of my own here. If Genesis was an effort to "clean up" the Babylonian myth for Hebrews, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to use a word with such a clear linguistic connection to the name of a Babylonian goddess. Genesis could simply have referred to the "waters" as it does later on.

 

[Marcia]

A little more from the same link . . .

Both EE and Genesis record the creation of the luminaries, and in both cases say that they were for light and time-keeping purposes -- no surprise, since all cultures worldwide use the luminaries for the same purpose. The Babylonian account does take a more "astrological" view, however, as it makes a point of the creation of the zodiac and the partitioning of constellations within. Genesis also reports the creation of luminaries in the reverse order of the EE (which lists the stars first). Genesis is also missing EE's reference to gates at the east and the west of the sky through which the sun and moon pass [116]. One is constrained to ask how critics, who suppose the Hebrews to believe in a solid sky and a flat earth, think that this little tidbit was left out of a copycat story.

 

[Marcia]

As far as Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two different creation stories, here is another view:

From
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
It has been noted by scholars such as U. Casssuto (1961: 89-92; also Kitchen 1966: 116-17) that Genesis 1 gives a general description of mankind in the framework of the entire creation of the world and Genesis 2 gives a detailed description of humankind and their immediate context on the earth.[7] From a discourse grammatical point of view, this relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may be explained as a generic-specific relationship (Longacre 1983: 119, 122) and the two constitute a "hyponymous"[8] parallelism, so to speak.

This feature might also be explained as a phenomenon of what Grimes calls a "scope change" in narrative discourse, which is a phenomenon of "zooming in from an overall perspective to a closeup, with a corresponding shift in reference" (1975: 46-47). This is the way I have described the nature of the relationship between the two "creation" stories of Genesis elsewhere (1985); they have different scopes or viewpoints by which the author or narrator describes one and the same creation of mankind, first with relation to the cosmos, and then with a narrower focus on the man's relationship with the woman, the animals, and the environment in the second story. Therefore, the flow of discourse runs from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and following, not vice versa, as assumed by the traditional source critics.

As for 2:4, whose two halves constitute a chiastic parallelism, Wenham takes this verse as serving "both as a title to 2:5-4:26 and as a link with the introduction 1:1-2:3.[9] In another context I have suggested that it serves as a link between the two stories and that this linkage is a kind of transitional technique that according to Parunak points to a surface pattern of repetition or similarity that joins successive textual units together (Tsumura 1985: 48; Purunak 1983). Genesis 1-2 could thus be explained as Parunak's A/aB pattern; in 2:4a (a) the narrator repeats the keywords of Genesis 1:1-2:3 (A) and initiates a new section of story, 2:4b-4:26 (B).

 

[Marcia]

And from the same link, part of the view on the relationship between EE and Genesis:

So, Genesis 1 and "Enuma elish," which was composed primarily to exalt Marduk in the pantheon of Babylon,[11] have no direct relation to each other. Not only is the creation by divine fiat in Genesis unique in the ancient Near East, the creation of light as the first creating act appears only in Genesis (Lambert 1980: 71; 1965). Thus the creation in the Genesis story is quite different from the idea of "order out of chaos," though the latter is also often called "creation" (McCarthy 1967).

It is not correct to say that "Enuma elish" was adopted and adapted by the Israelites to produce the Genesis stories. As Lambert holds, there is "no evidence of Hebrew borrowing from Babylon" (1965: 296). Sj"berg accepts Lambert's opinion that "there was hardly any influence from that Babylonian text on the Old Testament creation accounts" (1984: 217). Hasel thinks rather that the creation account of Genesis 1 functions as an antimythological polemic in some cases (e.g., with the "sun," the "moon," and tnnm ('sea monsters'?), etc. (1974). One thing is clear with regard to the religious nature of the creation story of Genesis: in Genesis 1 and 2 no female deity exists or is involved in producing the cosmos and humanity. This is unique among ancient creation stories that treat of deities having personality.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

I think we've mentioned this a few times! No one asserts that Genesis is based on EE. But they are the same genre of writing. Creation of lights, primordial monsters (like Rahab and Leviathan in Hebrew history), little detail given to scientific-type issues, etc.

Would you agree that Moses probably knew of Enuma Elish and new that some of the Israelites knew of it as well?

Why didn't Moses say something like this?

"And then got created green plants. For the nourishment thereof he allowed that they might use light and carbon dioxide. Angiosperms and gymnosperms he created them. And He saw to it that each type had gametophytes which might facilitate reproduction..."

While that would have been ideal for us today that would have made no sense to the original Hebrews. Moses wrote the creation account with HIS audience in mind. And they likely would have taken from the story that YHWH is more powerful than all, not necessarily that the world was created in 6 literal days.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

I think we've mentioned this a few times! No one asserts that Genesis is based on EE. But they are the same genre of writing. Creation of lights, primordial monsters (like Rahab and Leviathan in Hebrew history), little detail given to scientific-type issues, etc.

Would you agree that Moses probably knew of Enuma Elish and new that some of the Israelites knew of it as well?

Charles, my posts were directed more to DavidFWhite than to you.

I am not sure Moses knew of Enuma Elish since some think Enuma Elish was written after the Pentateuch.

From
http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons/Originality1.htm
Some say the Enuma Elish was a copy of a Sumerian text containing the roots of the biblical creation. They think it preceded the Genesis account of creation and they also think the Genesis account was simply a copy of it. However, there are many problems with these assertions.

In 1845, an archaeologist found seven, stone tablets in some ancient ruins in Assyria; specifically, ancient Nineveh. These tablets contained a Babylonian, creation account written in Akkadian cuneiform. It was published in 1876 and named the Enuma Elish after the first two words, which mean "when above."

There are a few, vague similarities with the Genesis account. However, there are countless other things mentioned such as several gods, the death of a god, someone being created from a god's blood, etc. . . .

These tablets were found in the library of the Assyrian king Asshurbanapal. They are dated to the 12th century B.C. Some believe they are based on an older, Sumerian version of the poem from approximately 1800 B.C.; which was the time of Abraham and Hammurabi. Consequently, the real question is this: Did the alleged, Sumerian version pre-date the biblical account of creation and if it did, was the biblical account created from it?

The easiest way to find this answer is to discover when these stories were written. The events in the first five books of the Bible, often called the Pentateuch, pre-date the alleged, Sumerian text and were essentially written by Moses. Moses lived around 1500 B.C. There are a great number of reasons to believe Moses wrote 99% of the Pentateuch (including Genesis) and some of these reasons include the following.

1) In Exodus 17:14 and 34:27, we read that the Lord told Moses to write.

2) In Exodus 24:4, Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9, 31:22, and Deuteronomy 32 we read that Moses wrote.

3) The New Testament affirms, in Luke 20:28, that Moses wrote in the Pentateuch. It reads, "Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."

4) Later in biblical history, we read that there was a "Book of Moses." See Joshua 1:7 and 8, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Ezra 6:18, and Nehemiah 13:1.

5) Jesus and the early church attributed the Torah to Moses. See Matthew 19:7, 22:24, Mark 7:10, 12:26, John 1:17, 5:46, and 7:23.

6) The early Jewish and Christian tradition is virtually unanimous in ascribing Genesis through Deuteronomy to Moses. See Ecclesiasticus 24:23, Philo, Josephus, the Mishnah, and the Talmud.

Now, we have seen that the first five books of the Bible (including the creation account) were penned by Moses near 1500 B.C. This clearly predates even a late dating of the Enuma Elish. Therefore, one of our questions have been answered.

I still disagree that they are of the same genre of writing. Yes, they are both creation acccounts but that's about it. Any creation account is going to have some similarities. The dissimilarities are much stronger than the similarities!

Why didn't Moses say something like this?

"And then got created green plants. For the nourishment thereof he allowed that they might use light and carbon dioxide. Angiosperms and gymnosperms he created them. And He saw to it that each type had gametophytes which might facilitate reproduction..."

While that would have been ideal for us today that would have made no sense to the original Hebrews. Moses wrote the creation account with HIS audience in mind. And they likely would have taken from the story that YHWH is more powerful than all, not necessarily that the world was created in 6 literal days.

I think they would have thought it was a literal 6 days since that is what it says. There is no reason they would have supposed God was making that up or lying, giving metaphorical days. That is much less likely than that they believed those were literal days.

You are right Moses did not give the biological properties of the plants and it's true the people would not have understood it. God did not give advanced details like that, but what He said was true. Just because Moses did not give biological or chemical properties of plants does NOT mean that Gen 1 is not a literal account. That is not logical.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

What kind of evidence would it take for an evolutionist to understand the creationist point of view? They seem to dismiss everything out of hand.No author,no scientist who is a creationist,or any information which takes a creationist point of view is acceptable to them.It seems to me they are telling us something.