Biblical Inerrancy

Midwestguy · Post by **Midwestguy** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:07 am

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.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:08 am

it still takes a belief to belief in evolution and if Professor Charles Hapgood had anything to say anything about it... it wouldnt be good.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:10 am

perplexed101 wrote:
Lotan wrote:
perplexed101 wrote:im gonna state this for your benefit:

look at the prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism. You will find a link towards the information you seek. If you plan on barging in like an expert then it would help if you pay attention to the prior information presented.
I hate to break it to you, but there are NO "prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism" on this thread. No link either. Someone's not paying attention, but I don't think it's me. If you can't answer the question just say so. There's no need to be rude about it.
keep searching detective, you'll find it.

Pardon? Not only is this horribly unsporting, but it's also in violation of the rules.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

Let's avoid this sort of antagonism and try to view debating as a means to an end that all of us desire - the discovery of truth. And try to obey the rules if you want to be taken seriously.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:17 am

ok here is the proper wording:

i hate to break it to you but if you want the information that i provided on two different occasions, please by all means go to the prior posts with which, you will find the necessary information. If you disagree with the analysis provided as evidence then please state so as to determine the extent of your refusal.

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:23 am

perplexed101 wrote:ok here is the proper wording:

i hate to break it to you but if you want the information that i provided on two different occasions, please by all means go to the prior posts with which, you will find the necessary information. If you disagree with the analysis provided as evidence then please state so as to determine the extent of your refusal.

I disagree completely with the analysis on the basis of information presented in one of my prior posts.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:24 am

ok here is the proper wording:

i hate to break it to you but if you want the information that i provided on two different occasions, please by all means go to the prior posts with which, you will find the necessary information. If you disagree with the analysis provided as evidence then please state so as to determine the extent of your refusal.

Which, I think, prompted Lotan to ask where a link to evidence on the similarities between Chinese and Hebrew creation accounts would be found. I don't see it on this thread. Perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to simply post it again?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:31 am

phoenixfire wrote:The thing is, (and I think all serious scholars would agree) Genesis
is written as history, not myth or poem. Now I will admit that it is possible for us to misinterpret scripture and we are all susceptible to group think.
But I really don't see how you can honestly interpret Genesis as anything but 6 24 hour days. Whenever the hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal or 'day and night' other places in the Bible it always means a 24 hour day. In Genesis it is meant to be both.

I would agree that Genesis was intended to have a historical basis, but I do not think we can take it as literal history. I think most scholars would agree that there was a substantial oral tradition pre-dating the writing of the Genesis account. Oral traditions are quite often mythic, even when the based on what are or are perceived by the story-tellers to be actual events.

With regards to to the six-day interpretation, there is certainly NOT any kind of consensus among scholars that 'yom' must mean a 24 hour day. This is true among today's scholars as well as those in the past. For example, here is the Report of the Creation Study Committee of the Presbyterian Church. They very clearly state that they believe Genesis 1-3 to be the inerrant word of God, but the committee could not agree that the days were necessarily 24 hours. I do not agree with the committee on a lot of their views, but clearly even biblical literalists and those who, like the committee, believe in Genesis as a historical account have not come to agreement on the day question.

The report also relates the views of a number of historical church figures. Here is the view of Augustine as described in the report.

Puzzled as to when God created time, with the sun (by which our normal days are measured) created only on the fourth day, Augustine opted for instantaneous creation, with the "days" of Genesis 1 being treated as six repetitions of a single day or days of angelic knowledge or some other symbolic representation. Augustine's view, with its emphasis on instantaneous creation, would have an influence through the Middle Ages and still be held by some, such as Sir Thomas Browne, at the time of the Westminster Assembly.

Obviously, the controversy has existed for some time, and clearly predates Darwin and any notion of evolution or modern geological time.

The report also gives this quote, made by the presbytery of Mississippi, I believe around 1970

God performed his creative work in six days. (We recognize different interpretations of the word "day" and do not feel that one interpretation is to be insisted upon to the exclusion of all others.)

Obviously, if biblical literalists and those who do not accept evolution cannot reach agreement on the day question, there will likely be even less agreement among the larger Christian community, where there is not even any consensus that Genesis is historically accurate in all aspects.

Here is another example of a biblical literlist view that explicitly believes the days are NOT 24 hours.

Here is a book review which discusses three different views of the day question.

Furthermore, evolution poses a serious theological problem. Evolution requires millions of years of suffering and death...and if death existed before man then the whole theological basis of salvation is on shaky ground. It is very clear multiple places in scripture that death is a result of sin. Consider Romans 5

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned...Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that bring life to all men."

First, I would say that even if evolution creates a theological problem, that says nothing about whether it is true or not. The world is full of truths which have had unfortunate consequences of one sort or another.

I would disagree with the implication you make with regards to evolution and salvation and death. A common interpretation of Paul would consider the death to be 'spiritual death', for which physical death is a metaphor.

Recall Jesus words "my words are spirit and they are life, the flesh counts for nothing." In my view (and certainly many scholars would hold this view as well), the central message of the Bible is spiritual. Historical and certainly scientific aspects are peripheral. I think there would be nearly unanimous agreement among Christians that God the Father is a spiritual being, not a physical one. When 'God created man in Our image,' it seems to me that the plainest interpretation is that this means mans spiritual nature is in God's image, not his physical nature. In this case, biological evolution is irrelevant and thus not at all inconsistent with scripture.

Also, I think it is really easy to believe in evolutoin if that is all you have ever been exposed to. I think people discount the strong affect group think can have.

I suppose this is true of some, but certainly not in my case. I have made something of a study of the creationism versus evolution controversy and although I would not claim to be an expert, I clearly find that the overwhelming weight of evidence and logic supports evolution. In my view, the problem of 'group think' can work both ways, and is certainly very prevalent among some churches and denominations who refuse to consider evolution in any kind of objective way.

Obviously there are a lot of other threads on the forum that would address potential 'problems' with evolution. My own view is that the problems are minor and are overblown by the opponents of evolution. I would also say that, on a scientific basis, creationism, particularly young earth creationism, has orders of magnitude more problems. Multiple independent dating techniques show the earth to be much, much older than 6 to 10 thousand years, for example.

If you would like, we could take up the theological/biblical issues in the Copernicus thread (I am shamelessly promoting the thread every chance I get

).

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:57 am

I would agree that Genesis was intended to have a historical basis, but I do not think we can take it as literal history. I think most scholars would agree that there was a substantial oral tradition pre-dating the writing of the Genesis account. Oral traditions are quite often mythic, even when the based on what are or are perceived by the story-tellers to be actual events.

why not? what if the intention is to take it literally since both accounts are congruent? if according to a frame of reference is needed for at least a consistency of both to match.

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:57 am

With regards to to the six-day interpretation, there is certainly NOT any kind of consensus among scholars that 'yom' must mean a 24 hour day.

Surely ordinary days are intended to be understood, and that any sort of elongation is not. The Israelites cannot have been intended to suppose anything but ordinary days were meant. However, the whole story is not meant to be understood literally, imv. The fat and thin cows in Genesis 41 are intended to be understood as ordinary cows, not as elongated ones, or any other sort of cow, but the ones experienced by the ancients. But of course these cows did not exist, as they were part of a dream.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:01 am

Tilia wrote:
With regards to to the six-day interpretation, there is certainly NOT any kind of consensus among scholars that 'yom' must mean a 24 hour day.
Surely ordinary days are intended to be understood, and that any sort of elongation is not. The Israelites cannot have been intended to suppose anything but ordinary days were meant. However, the whole story is not meant to be understood literally, imv. The fat and thin cows in Genesis 41 are intended to be understood as ordinary cows, not as elongated ones or any other sort of cow but the ones experienced by the ancients. But of course these cows did not exist, as they were part of a dream.

i dont have a problem with believeing it, i dont mind being wrong if im wrong and if i was only going on the chinese discovery then i would admit skeptism but two accounts relational and hundres of miles apart? while one is within the basic framework of words like boat? coincedence? i dont think so.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:03 am

perplexed101 wrote:why not? what if the intention is to take it literally since both accounts are congruent? if according to a frame of reference is needed for at least a consistency of both to match.

What 'both accounts' are you referring to?