Biblical Inerrancy

[Midwestguy]

There are times when people talk about the "inerrancy" of the Bible. Is there a commonly agreed definition of the word? Does it mean the Bible is without error? If so, which manuscript does one rely on to arrive at this conclusion?

For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

I remain that curious but confused Midwest Guy.

[Tilia]

I agree; that does not mean that the story is without meaning, though.

While you might be able to get some philosophical meaning out of the story, in a thread on Biblical inerrancy, that's pretty irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant if 'philosophical meaning' was the meaning intended by the author(s), because if there can be no such meaning, and the intended meaning is literal, then the existence of these stories is without purpose, at best, and detrimental to the value of the Scripture, at worst. In other words, spiritual meaning gives early Genesis purpose, and the Bible as a whole greater validity.

We might also note, along with YECs, that nowhere in Scripture is there any intent to inform scientifically. The whole Bible is an essentially spiritual book, and that is what we might expect from early Genesis, and not a strange departure into science. It is non-Christians representing themselves as Christians who have made early Genesis into an issue, imv.

The fact of the matter is that the creation story in the Bible never happened, nor did the flood,

It's an unimportant fact, though.

The Bible is not, therefore, inerrant, it contains clear and obvious contradictions, errors and falsehoods.

That is a claim frequently made, but never, in my experience, substantiated.

[Jose]

Hmmm.....What you say will have meaning to some of our members, but not to others. There are a great many who accept it as true, and believe that it all really happened. Asserting that it did not is, to them, equivalent to their asserting to you that it did.

Meaning doesn't really matter IMO. Whether you accept it as true or not doesn't change whether it is, in fact, true or false....

I think there are two ways to argue this, if you want to make headway with your argument.... the "self-contradiction" argument.

That's been done many times and in many places, it's really not worth doing again. Besides, it doesn't convince any of the 'true believers' who simply cannot conceive of the fact that the Bible might be wrong.

The second is to provide evidence that what the bible says is not recorded in the physical record of what actually occurred--the earth itself....Can you provide some of the evidence that supports your view?

That's also been done many times, with the same results as above.... "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" accurately describes the thought processes of these individuals, who are outrightly irrational.

They're not worth debating because they cannot produce anything beyond "I'm right, so there."

So...what are you doing here? You say we can't convince people by discussing the text, we can't convince them by providing the evidence, and so they're not worth debating. You make it sound as if it's a lost cause, and we should all go home and get drunk. Yet here you are debating. Why?

It seems to me that if you're right, and the biblical story didn't happen, you should be able to convince us with evidence...but you don't want to try, even?

Sometimes, patient discussion leads to understanding. Take a peek at Awake for the First Time, and see if it gives you hope. The evidence for how the world works makes a pretty powerful statement. It is possible to get some of it across. Every bit counts.

I merely suggest that the least effective strategy is to rely purely on assertions that the bible is mythology.

[phoenixfire]

This might be a good question to consider, perhaps in a different thread. We could address:
What information do we have about when and by whom Genesis (and the other 4 books of the so called Pentateuch) was written?
What evidence do we have that Moses wrote it?

If we stray too much off topic talking about it, then yes, we should probably make a new thread.

It has been some years since my college religion classes, but as I recall, many scholars consider the Pentateuch, including Genesis, to be a compilation from a number of authors or sources. There are 4 in particular that are identified by the way in which the refer to God. The sources are often referred to by 'initials' one of which I think is J and I can't remember the others now. I'll see what I can find.

For what it is worth, I will mention what my NIV Study Bible says.

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT...During the last three centuries many scholars have claimed to find in thePentateuch four underlying sources. The presumed documents, allegedly dating from teh tenth to the fifth centuries BC are called J, E, D, and P. Each of these documents is claimed to have it own characteristics and its own theology, which often contradicts that of the other documents. The Pentateuch is thus depicted a sa patchwork of storeis, poems and laws. However, this view is not supported by conclusive evidence, and intensive archaeological and literary research has tended to undercut manyh of the arguments used to challenge the authorship of Moses."

I would like something more detailed, but there is something from several scholars.

I will also share something from a book I have put together by several professors of Bible called 'Hard Sayings of the Bible' related to something that was discussed earlier. "There can be no debate that there are large numbers of figures of speech in Genesis...that is not the issue as all literary types will include some forms of figurative speech...to declare that since figurative language is present we can assume that the material of Genesis 1-3 is less than a straightforward presentation of real events is ot jump to conclusions...(they go on to state why it does not exhibit the forms of myth or poetry)...what we do find, however, is a carefully and closely reasoned narration of events that in Genesis 1 are set in almost a dry didactic form. Empshasis is laid on definition, naming, evaluating and a general ordering of events. As such, the account have more in common with narrative prose than anything else.

While the Genesis narrative cannot be called 'historical' in teh usual sense of the word, in that most use the term to indicate facts independently verificable by two or more sources or witnesses, it certainly appears to be claiming ot record actual events in the stream of happenings in our kind of space-time world"

Part of why I subscribe to the 'non 24 hour days' interpretation is that I find scientific argument for an old earth so compelling. The data seem to me so overwhelming that the earth is old, that there was no global flood, etc. that I find a metaphorical or non-literal approach to Genesis the most reasonable. I also find the historical precedent for changing interpretation based on scientific data, as was done in the Copernican controversy, very compelling.

Hmmm. The biggest weakness of evolution. I don't feel like evolution has weaknesses, so much as it has aspects which are not completely explained. This is true of many areas of science (we still don't really understand how gravity works). It is easy to think of things that might be hard to explain. Just today, I was thinking of butterflies. How would evolution produce an organism that goes through a chrysallis or coccoon stage to produce the adult version of the organism? I would be very interested to know how this might have happened.

Hmm...I see several giant problems with evolution, the first of which is probably a lack of a good mechanism for macro-evolution. The ordering of the fossil record is probably one of the stronger arguments for it, although species appearing fully formed seemingly out of nowhere is a problem.

For creationism, I would have to be honest and say I feel it has lots of glaring weaknesses (if we are talking about the YEC version). Perhaps the biggest is the global flood (and there are several threads on this already). I cannot see how a global flood, occurring sometime in the last 5000 years, could possible have allowed for the existence of the millions of sedimentary layers found around the earth, as well as the thousands of annual ice layers found in places like Greenland.

I know there is a separate forum for creation/evolution, but it is hard to avoid the subject when talking about the inerrancy of the Bible.

you say that you cannot see how a global flood could account for the millions of layers of sedimentary rock and the ice in Greenland? Wouldn't this be exactly what you would expect to find if there had been a global flood? Furthermore, as to teh age of the earth, I can name several processes that point to a young earth. Continental erosion is one example. The continents should have eroded several times over if they are as old as evolutionists say. And though there is new rock continually being added, the sedimentary rock should have been eroded and we should be seeing igneous rock on the continents. But as you say, we just have tons of sedimentary rock to deal with. And have you ever heard of polystrate fossils (things like trees that stick vertically through supposedly millions of years of rock)? I have never heard any kind of old-earth argument that can account for those.

For awhile I thought the biggest problem with YEC was distant starlight, however there is a new model that does a fairly good job of accounting for this.

[hiramabbi2]

Dear Readers:

The Bible does Not give the Earth's age in man's time. In God's time, Today is the 6th Day or Age.Scripture shows that the Big Bang, which happened some 14 Billion years ago, in man's time, was on the 3rd Day.

This means that each of God's "Days" are some 5 Billion years in length. This means that the morning of the Creation was some 25-30 Billion years ago.

The age of this Earth is in complete accord with Scripture. Those who tell you differently only demonstate that they CANNOT understand Scripture.

[Tilia]

The Bible does Not give the Earth's age in man's time.

Why would God want to tell anyone how old the earth is? How does that fit into His plan of salvation?

[hiramabbi2]

You have to take entire Holy Scripture as a WHOLE - from the beginning (his creation) all the way to the end as prophecied - in order to have complete pleasure of fellowship with the Father or Son.

[Jose]

Hmm...I see several giant problems with evolution, the first of which is probably a lack of a good mechanism for macro-evolution. The ordering of the fossil record is probably one of the stronger arguments for it, although species appearing fully formed seemingly out of nowhere is a problem.

These "problems" have been addressed in the C vs E subforum. The only reason that these "seem" to be problems to creationists is that they have been misrepresented. Macroevolution is very well undestood, and the myth that species appeared fully formed out of nowhere is a simple lack of understanding of the fossil record. But, as you say, this is for the other forum.

you say that you cannot see how a global flood could account for the millions of layers of sedimentary rock and the ice in Greenland? Wouldn't this be exactly what you would expect to find if there had been a global flood? Furthermore, as to teh age of the earth, I can name several processes that point to a young earth. Continental erosion is one example. The continents should have eroded several times over if they are as old as evolutionists say. And though there is new rock continually being added, the sedimentary rock should have been eroded and we should be seeing igneous rock on the continents. But as you say, we just have tons of sedimentary rock to deal with. And have you ever heard of polystrate fossils (things like trees that stick vertically through supposedly millions of years of rock)? I have never heard any kind of old-earth argument that can account for those.

Again, these are for the C vs E thread...but, as you say, it's hard to avoid them in discussions of biblical inerrancy. These are the kinds of hard data that demonstrate the impossibility of biblical inerrancy.

First, the sedimentary rock and ice cores are absolutely not expected for a global flood. The flood didn't last long enough to produce the sediment, and, of course, would have melted ice on Greenland, rather than caused it to form in 160,000 annual layers.

Erosion, of course, is as you say. That's why the ancestral Rockies no longer exist. They eroded to nothing. Of course, the eroded rock has to go somewhere, and that's sediment. The sediment lithifies, and is lifted up again. It's all very straightforward. Igneous rock? There's lots of it around--much of it is what has lifted up the sedimentary rock.

And, of course, the polystrate fossil thing has been dealt with so many times it hardly seems necessary to mention it again. Normal geology accounts for them. Remember, the bible speaks of a world-wide flood. It never says that there have never been local floods. The geological evidence for local floods is immense.

The error that people make in saying that "this particular thing proves the bible is inerrant, because it is exactly what we'd expect to find after a flood" is that local floods can produce geological features that result from floods. The biblical inerrantists need to go one step further, and look at additional information. Normally, they simply blot this out. For example: the global flood cannot account for the rocks that are formed from volcanic ash that settles on land. There are many such strata. We find fossils of land animals in these strata. There are also many strata formed by volcanic ash that settled into lakes, which produces a different type of sedimentary pattern. We find fossils of fish and clams in these strata.

The rock layers that formed by the settling of ash through air, onto dry ground, are on top of layers of limestone and shale, which form under water. Above them are layers of limestone and shale. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the flood covered everything, then went away, then covered everything up again. Yet, geology records this type of sequence many times in many places.

This is just one of those bits of evidence that forces us to conclude that the Genesis story is not historically and scientifically accurate. The earth itself contradicts it.

But that's okay because the exact time and sequence of creation, and the punishment by flood, are not the important parts of scripture. They teach us of god's importance and power. Why should anyone care that it does so by a fantastic story, rather than by describing geology and biology as they acctually occur? As Tilia suggests, those sorts of nerdy details don't really fit into the plan of salvation. Why would god give us the bible in the form of a science text, which would put most people to sleep?

[-0_0-]

=For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

I remain that curious but confused Midwest Guy.

Doesn't matter. Both of these numbers point to Nero as being the antichrist. Nero's Greek name, Neron Caesar, adds up to 616 and his regular name adds up to 666.

[Tilia]

You have to take entire Holy Scripture as a WHOLE - from the beginning (his creation) all the way to the end as prophecied - in order to have complete pleasure of fellowship with the Father or Son.

That is what both YECs and evolutionary creationists do. It is therefore unnecessary to know how old the earth is, by the above argument.

[Cephus]

So...what are you doing here? You say we can't convince people by discussing the text, we can't convince them by providing the evidence, and so they're not worth debating. You make it sound as if it's a lost cause, and we should all go home and get drunk. Yet here you are debating. Why?

Debates on any topic rarely change anyone's mind, that's simply the reality of the human species. The Flat Earth Society still exists in Zion, Illinois. They are supremely convinced that the Earth is flat and outrightly reject any any all evidence to the contrary out of hand. They will not reconsider their beliefs for the same reason most theists won't, because their beliefs are inextricably linked to their worldview and concept of personal worth. For most fundamentalists, the very idea of removing the concept of God from their lives causes the whole house of cards to topple. That one idea holds up everything else in their lives, from their moral views to their self-identity and worth.

The only worth of public debates are to convince the fence-sitters, the people who are not so staunchly buried in their belief systems that they can actually fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments and make up their own minds. Otherwise, you're right, we should all be home getting drunk, for those who actually do drink.

It seems to me that if you're right, and the biblical story didn't happen, you should be able to convince us with evidence...but you don't want to try, even?

If you would look at the evidence objectively, certainly. For those of use who have been debating for decades on end, we've seen evidence go ignored and the only response is "Well God says..." Believers will believe, regardless of evidence and are supremely convinced, without evidence, that it is impossible for them to be wrong. People simply do not come to religion through researching the facts, but because religion fills an emotional void in their lives.