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.

[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.

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

Of course it is necessary, especially, when YECs believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, based on Ussher's flawed assumption, contrary to science findings.

Like I said, the problem is not with the Scripture, but, YECs flawed interpretation.

[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.

Of course it is necessary, especially, when YECs believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, based on Ussher's flawed assumption, contrary to science findings.

But surely it is possible to believe in a 6000 yr-old earth and still believe in God's plan of salvation. The age of the earth is simply immaterial unless one is an archaeologist or scientist in a relevant field. What matters for salvation is Christ and Him crucified, and nothing else.

Like I said, the problem is not with the Scripture, but, YECs flawed interpretation.

The real problem with the YEC movement imv is not its belief, but its articulation. Christians are silent on this issue, if they are obedient. The Scripture is clear enough on inessentials. 'What you think about these things, keep between yourself and God.'

[hiramabbi2]

But surely it is possible to believe in a 6000 yr-old earth and still believe in God's plan of salvation.

Of course, anything is possible when you believe in God.

The age of the earth is simply immaterial unless one is an archaeologist or scientist in a relevant field.

I disagree. Each Christian has his own measure of information. I do not question the work of the Holy Spirit, for His ways are above my ways. Each Christian learns what he should know, as the Holy Spirit leads him.

What matters for salvation is Christ and Him crucified, and nothing else.

Only IF you're talking about man's salvation, then of course, I have no argument here.

Hiramabbi: Like I said, the problem is not with the Scripture, but, YECs flawed interpretation.

The real problem with the YEC movement imv is not its belief, but its articulation. Christians are silent on this issue, if they are obedient. The Scripture is clear enough on inessentials. 'What you think about these things, keep between yourself and God.'

The evidence is in everything around us. God's Creation shouts of His Majesty and Sovereignty. EVERY true discovery agrees totally with His Holy Word, or the interpretation of a man, is in error.

[McCulloch]

Of course, anything is possible when you believe in God.
...
The evidence is in everything around us. God's Creation shouts of His Majesty and Sovereignty. EVERY true discovery agrees totally with His Holy Word, or the interpretation of a man, is in error.

What need does one have for logic, reason or evidence when you start with the a priori belief in god? Any discovery must me either denounced or reconciled with His Holy Word. If the earth is shown to be older than the bible says it is then either

• revise your interpretation of the bible OR
• denounce the evidence OR
• introduce a miracle

This approach is not the one of reason or of science.

[Forge]

What need does one have for logic, reason or evidence when you start with the a priori belief in god?

???
Am I to take this that God-believer = hater of logic/science? I beg to differ.

Any discovery must me either denounced or reconciled with His Holy Word. If the earth is shown to be older than the bible says it is then either

• revise your interpretation of the bible OR
• denounce the evidence OR
• introduce a miracle

This approach is not the one of reason or of science.

Are you sure? Reason does this all the time. If I say "The man is both a black and a non-black at the same time", the logician will take an a priori belief in the unprovable law of noncontradiction, and eem the statement false. Science also does this. It assumes that the scientific method is true, even though it cannot be proven scientifically.

[phoenixfire]

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.

Why couldn't the flood have formed the sediment. I have never heard this argument. As for the ice...everything I have read by creationists would predict an Ice Age after the flood...the water is hot from all the energy, the land is cool, lots of evaporation and precipitation.

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.

No disagreement there. So you would agree that polystrate fossils indicate a flood? So polystrate fossils fit well in a flood model, or could have been caused by local floods.

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.

What would we expect if there was a global flood? First, creationists would definitley say that volcanoes were going off all over the place both before and after the flood. It wasn't like the flood was over in 3 months and everything was settled down, the earth would be settling for quite some time afterward (maybe 500-1000 years or more). Huge lakes would be stuck inland, mountains would continue to lift, the continents would be moving, there would still be lots of volcanic activity. The erosion from heavy runoff and shifting landmasses would cause some of those huge bodies of water to shift causing all sorts of local floods and disasters.

Instead of contradicting scripture, what you described is more what I would expect to find.

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?

I would disagree strongly here, although I understand your reasoning. The whole evolution/creation debate is critically important because the authority of the scripture is at stake. If people think the first books of the Bible are just a bunch of made up stories, they aren't nearly as likely to take the stories of Jesus seriously and thus are less likely to find salvation. On the other hand, if the culture at large admitted to the correctness of scripture in all areas, how would that change people's response to the Gospel and how they applied God's commandments to their lives?

[Tilia]

The whole evolution/creation debate is critically important because the authority of the scripture is at stake. If people think the first books of the Bible are just a bunch of made up stories

Like the parables.

[Forge]

Like the parables.

Not like the parables, since the parables were purely fictious stories told to convey some moral message. In general, Genesis type stories are "fictional", meaning they aren't de facto literal, but are still historically true.

[hiramabbi2]

Creationism is accepting God's Truth as told in Genesis. It is True to every true discovery of Science. It exposes the lie of the Evolution of Human Intelligence. Creationism, the manner in which God Created His Perfect Heaven, is a work in progress.

Those who see contradictions between God's Truth, and the True discoveries of Science, have a problem with their interpretation of God's Holy Word.

God's Truth and Truth from every source is the same Truth.

[Tilia]

Creationism is accepting God's Truth as told in Genesis.

Which did God make first, man, then plants and animals, or plants and animals, then man?