Is the Bible inerrant or not to be taken seriously?

Just a clarification:

"Inerrancy" is a doctrine that is debated between evangelical scholars of all stripes. There seems to be a lot of confusion between posters here as to what the term "inerrant" is supposed to mean by those who espouse it. Rightly so because, I like Bill Dayson's term, it is "exotic" in the sense that it is easy to misunderstand and could perhaps be redefined. A lot of people say the Bible is "inerrant but..." not in the english translation, etc. etc. Such a number of qualifiers points to the difficulty of using the adjective effectively.

Inerrancy is not "biblical literalism," those that insist that everything the text says is to be taken as discursively direct and factual. Especially not in the poetry.

Inerrancy is not a statement about "Sola Scriptura," the Protestant "Scripture principle."

Inerrancy is the assertion that the authors of Scripture recorded a wholly and scientifically reliable history. Depending on what an author intended to be taken as fact, the textual product of his/her intentions are taken to be wholly reliable on scientific and historical terms. Now, that leaves open what one understands to be discursively straightforward and demanding a literal interpretation.... but again this is another qualifier. You see what I mean.

Inerrancy is the doctrine of B.B. Warfield who basically argued, on the basis of the acceptance of biblical inspiration across the board, that the texts must be wholly inerrant as well. It is an inference based on inspiration.

Inerrancy, then, as it was originally defined, would mean that the Bible is not contradictory. That is, not that Isaiah and Jeremiah can't have different attitudes about Jerusalem (one positive and the other negative), but that the authors don't contradict each other in terms of the historical reports they generate on the same events. This creates a lot of discussion surrounding the Gospels and the book of Chronicles (and the Dtr. History).

The most serious charge that can be leveled against inerrancy, from an evangelical standpoint, in my opinion, is the idea that Christians have caved into modernity, trying to relate to God's revelation with impersonal categories. For instance, if one explains the election between Bush and Kerry in terms of psychology, one shows that one cares more about the authority of psychology than political science. If one explains the Bible in terms of its scientific viability, doesn't that show that we are evaluating something from God on the basis of human standards that we find to be more powerful?

I think, when the mind is operating in the right cognitive environment, and is spiritually healthy, correct theological judgments can be made regarding the Scripture principle. So liberated reason, liberated from sin, can regard these issues apart from self interest. The gutting aspect of the above argument is that reason can be so guided by self interest. However, when we are standing in the right place spiritually, it need not be.

When I was at Western Seminary, I unleashed the powers of historical criticism on one of my better professors. Trying to demonstrate contradictions, etc. There wasn't a single contradiction I could bring up that wasn't explicable, in dialogue with him, that couldn't be interpreted in a way that shows how the author's probable intent guides us through the tension (now a "tension" not a "contradiction"). So, my best judgment, from my reading of the texts, is that the text is wholly reliable.

If you must get an answer for the "earth is only 6k years old" problem (and it is a problem) I'd encourage you to buy an expensive copy of John Sailhamer's out of print "Genesis Unbound."

Finally, I don't find my identity in a correct interpretation of Scripture, but in the Holy Spirit's ministry of Jesus Christ's resurrected life to me. As best as I can understand the Scriptures, however, they do not contradict and are reliable in terms of history and science, in the face of the critical challenge.

Just my $.02

Chris

 

'they do not contradict and are reliable in terms of history and science...' What about the historicity of the 6 day creation, the garden of eden, adam and eve, incest to propagate the human species, the tower of abel, the flood, the parting of the red sea (and the plagues of Egypt when history shows no record that the Israelites were even in Egypt!)..to name a few.

Even history is silent on the life of Jesus, even though he was suppose to be running around the place, raising the dead, healing the sick, feeding the five thoasand, and eventually rising himself from the dead!

To be a believer in the Bible, one must suspend one's credible and rational processes, and accept so much - historical, scientific and rational - to the altar of 'faith'.

 

AdamSmith:

I'll drop the sarcasm and deal with your questions resepctfully point-by-point. First, though, I want you to answer a question honestly, if not on this board, at least to yourself: have you really done much study in these areas?

6 day creation: Many--perhaps most--Christians don't believe in a literal 6 calendar day creation. The word for day in Hebrew can be rendered variously, just as it can in English i.e.: "in the day of King George III" could mean a 24 hour period within his reign or it could mean that era of world history starting with his reign in 1760 or his birth 20-some years earlier. There is nothing about the text that compels a literal 24 hour reading--according to the account in Genesis, the first three "days" did not even have a Sun to impose the concept of a 24 hour day! Also, we shouldn't make the mistake of transposing our modern Western Greek-inspired concepts of "truth" upon the very brief creation account created by very Eastern ancients. The first chapter is actually in ancient poem form, and was meant to give a brief and beautiful narrative of the origin of the universe. What's intriguing to me, however, is the number of ways in which this ancient account does comport with our modern conceptions, considering that it was dashed together by nomads wandering in the desert who had no access to a modern reference library or to modern science. It states very early on in the narrative that God said "let there be light"--reminiscent of the Big Bang. It states that in the beginning, the earth had "no form and was void", that next a "firmament"--roughly translated "atmosphere" in this context--was the next to be created, next "dry land"--continents appeared, then vegetation, then various forms of animal life, starting in the oceans, then mammals, then finally humankind. Now again, as you read the account, it's not perfect--remember, it was an ancient poem and a very brief account that doesn't seem to even consider itself with science, but nonetheless, it's remarkable how closely many of the key points synch with our modern understanding. And that's not a small point, remember, we take so many scientific discoveries for granted today of which they had no knowledge--and yet, those primitives came awfully close in their poetry creation narrative.

Garden of Eden--I think it's fascinating that the Bible places it in modern-day Northern Iraq near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and places the account at approximately 6,000-7,000 years ago. Are you aware that the so-called "Explosion of Civilization"--a modern concept based upon archealogical discovery--was said to have its genesis in Northern Iraq about 6,000-7,000 years ago, starting with the ancient Sumerians? How ever did those nomadic ex-slaves guess the time and place of the dawn of civilization, where could they have gotten this info that few if any other ancient civilizations far greater than they seemed to have?--interesting.

Adam and Eve and the incest--Interestingly, the Bible seems to acknowledge that there were other people around in addition to Adam and Eve (see Genesis 4:14)--I don't quite know what to make of it, perhaps they had other children not recounted, perhaps there were simply others, but in any event there was quite likely no necessity for incest.

The Tower of Abel [sic]--I'm sure you mean the Tower of Babel, Abel was the second son of Adam and Eve--There is some fairly strong evidence for this, it's readily available.

There is some evidence of an ancient catastrophic flood in the Middle East that covered many hundreds of miles. The German author Werner Keller wrote an interesting account of this in "The Bible As History".

As for the parting of the Red Sea, as it was a one-time miraculous event, you wouldn't expect to see evidence of it, I doubt that there would be significant geological transformations as a result.

Actually, you're right, the "Israelites" were never in Egypt--they were called the "Hebrews" at that time, they hadn't yet taken over the land of Canaan which is now know in part as "Israel"--I know, I'm nit-picking. In any event, there is ample evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt, there is even strong circumstantial evidence of the Exodus. Here's one area where you're just really off base.

History is far from silent on the life of Jesus, there are numerous accounts, both from religious and secular sources: Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc, etc. etc. It's undeniable that a group calling themselves Christians starts showing up in history in the first century, and that even those accounts of their ancient enemies do not deny the historicity of Jesus--they just disagree with the Christians as to His significance. Also, numerous manuscripts start showing up very soon after the death of Jesus--Magdalean College in Oxford has a fragment that is quite likely of the Gospel of Matthew that dates to pre-70 A.D.--well within the time period in which people were alive who had seen Jesus themselves and could say: "No, it didn't happen that way at all" or "Actually, Jesus never existed, I was in Jerusalem on that Passover weekend, been going for decades, I never saw anyone who claimed to be the Messiah"--my point is that if Jesus never existed, it's overwhelmingly likely that numerous ancient accounts would be discovered to that effect. It might be easy for a very powerful empire--say, Egypt, which was notorious for this--to gloss over history and suppress that which counters the "party line", but the Christians had no such means, they were a small tribe that was oppressed and hiding for their lives , they wouldn't be in power for centuries--they just didn't have the means.

I do not believe that one must check their brain at the door to enter church, in fact, the more I learn--not just about the Bible, but about science, the arts, world history, archeaology, ethics, logic--the more I am becoming convinced that there's something there in those "dusty books" that defies normal human explanation, and it only bolsters my faith.

I'm curious as to your background, adamsmith, would you describe your upbringing as religious or irreligious? I'm not trying to impune you, just curious.

All the best to you!

 

Adam Smith,

I like your name! I'm sorry, it just seems funny to me that Adam doesn't believe in Adam. Okay, sorry that was a bit juvenile.

Seriously, I did recommend a book on the problem of Genesis' translation. I think the problems you are addressing have mostly to do with the supposed contradiction between the Bible and contemporary science's claims to an old universe. I don't think there is a problem here. If you really want to investigate, I think that text has answers that are more convincing than my ideological colleague states above.

Thank you for the respect of, at least apparently, reading most of my post.

Chris

 

Hi Mrw142

I think you are seriously over stating the case. I believe there certainly are areas where the Biblical references are supported by historical information, but I also believe that many church goers do as Adam suggests and just blind accept factual and nonsensical parts of Bible without even a basic understanding of it, its history, and context.

 

A very religious background! I was blessed with a good friend who taught me to read and more importantly, think, and check my dogma.

To say that there were other people around when Adam and Eve were suppose to be our first parents presents some very real problems for the church i.e. the entrance of sin through our first parents, the temptation, the fall, and others being held accountable for Adam and Eve's bad decision. I am aware that others were suppose to be around when Adam and Eve were 'created" (which further presents problems for the special creation of humankind). This is one way of overcoming the logic of the need of incest to propagate the human race from one set of parents.

The Tower of Babel and the beginning of langages; tell that one to the linguists

It is interesting that it is always the church that must adjust their arguments to hsitory and science; not the other way around!

My posting was not made in any sarcastic tone or manner. I once believed all that I now doubt ('doubt' not being a strong enough term). But you really have to suspend the powers of logic, rationality and the finding of history and science to be a believer in any sacred text.

 

Of course there are people who blindly accept faith, and that can be dangerous if not supported by evidence. But there are also those who blindly--in spite their extremely limited knowledge of the universe--blurt: "There is no God." I think the latter group is more blind in their lack of faith than the former is blind in their faith.

I don't think there's a thing nonsensical in the Bible unless you assume that anything supernatural is nonsense--but to say there can't possibly be that which transcends our natural universe is nonsense. Do you understand what I'm getting at? I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just saying that to insist on a purely mechanistic view of the universe and to reject the existence of God is claiming more knowledge and wisdom for yourself than you can possibly possess.

 

Adam Smith,

It is statements like these that confirm to me that you have not, indeed, been exposed to very good biblical scholarship. I would recommend that you get a copy of a good commentary from Word publishers, or perhaps Expositor's Bible Commentary. Those are the "basic" ones that answer such questions. Also, because of some of these comments, I would recommend Henri Blocher's "Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle." He explores different historical solutions to the difficulty that "sin of Adam" presents for us all.

On the issue of creation, I again recommend Sailhamer's "Genesis Unbound." That will solve your problem.

On the issue of the Babel story: I have never heard this objection before, and I'm going to think about it. Personally, I studied ancient languages for my MA, and had to take a major exam on the history of the northwest semitics. I don't really have a problem with it. But I'll think about it. The history of language doesn't seem to be a concrete enough discipline to wage your eternity on, and your seeming certainty of athiems so far.

I would recommend you read Leslie Newbigin's "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" or "Foolishness to the Greeks: the Gospel and Western Culture." I found his critique of the "faith vs. science" polemic in our culture to be strong. Essentially, our universe is presumed to be rational and contingent because it inherited a theistic world view that believes in creation. There is no emergent reason from a naturalistic view to assume or conceive of a rational and contingent universe. This has been historically defended elsewhere in a credible way, but I'm not aware of the references at the moment.

Yes it was. Here is one of your quotes:

This seems to elevate reason to a level that Descartes did and impose your positivistic view on others. To say that there are not reasonable Christians is to fail to understand that rationality itself is constituted by a larger picture of the world.

Looking for respect and honest evaluation,

Chris

 

adamsmith:

One clarification: I was saying that I would drop the sarcasm, not that you should. Your tenor in a debate is your own business, I was merely referring to my own snide attitude, which I felt was out of place when using apologetics to defend the One who said "Do unto others..."

Cheers!

 

Unfortunately, I think many, perhaps most, with a religous bent accept their Church's dogma on blind faith. My guess is this is more the rule than the exception just because it is expedient. I have run across several people who closely examined their faith and make a concious decision, but they certainly are the exception. What is the biggest predictor of anyone's religion? The Church they were raised in.

I also think there is much in the Bible that could reasonable be called baseless. Its content, translation, and interpretation has changed over and over again. Even in its current form it has dozens of versions, each drasticly different from the others.

 

I came from a solid conservative Calvinist position; one which I accepted whole heartedly for many years. When I say that to be a Christian ( or a believer of any faith) you have to suspend your rationality, I speak from experience.

I know the Bible says that it is the 'fool' who says in their heart that 'there is no God'. However, I think I could possibly say with the same degree of authority that those who don't vote Republican are fools!

You see, the questions that arise is; is there even a god? It is pure speculation that there is one. There is no proof, so to call me a fool for not believing in something for which there is no proof seems to me to make that person a fool who accuses me!

And if there is a god, which god? Whose god? The Christian god, the Hindu god, the Buddist god....which one? This is a very important question because if I am to appease this god then I must know how to do so. The Christians say I can only approach God the Father through Jesus Christ and there is no other way. I won't bore you with saying what all other believers say from other faiths as to how to approach god.

Now you will possibly say that I must approach god through the Christian way. At this point, we need to shake our heads and contemplate the absurdity of it all.

 

Not true, there are different versions, but by no means"drastically different", certainly not in essential doctrine. Now if you can honsetly say you've sat down and read virtually every major English translation and compared, you might have some basis, but otherwise, I'm led to believe that you just threw it out there--it's just not true!

 

There is good evidence, which I have cited around this forum to you and others, and I won't now bore you with it, but if you can't understand how a person is a fool--given their extremely limited range of knowledge--for making such an absolute claim that "there is no God", then I must simply shake my head and contemplate the absurdity of it all.

 

Re: It's the killin' part that is the problem...

Amen!

 

I believe that the Bible is highly symbolical and shouldn't be taken literally as many Fundamentalist Christians believe.

Okay, I'm Catholic, quite conservative in my practice of ethics, but very liberal in my views of the bible.

Prior to Vatican II, many of the Bible stories were taken AS IS. Meaning, people from my faith held them to be hard historical truth.

After Vatican II, the Holy See revamped their position and admitted that the Jews like writing in metaphorical language to illustrate a point.

Hence, stories like GENESIS, the Wedding at CANA and the Multiplication of the Loaves are now considered symbol stories and not objective narrations of actual historical happenings.

Lots of good elementary school books used in GeorgeTown University can help differentiate the facts from the metaphors in the bible. The Jesuits excel at this!

 

How do you distinguish then what is fact and what is fiction? It all seems to come down to believing what you what to believe, however you wish to believe it!

It also leave you wondering when you have a man (or at least his followers) claiming that he can raise the dead, multiply bread and fishes, heal the sick, to name a few, and then in this day and age you see the likes of Si Baba who claims to materialize ash and gold (even though he has been caught on camera pulling a swift one!)

Now Si Baba teaches good things, and does good things, but maintains his godhood status with magic tricks. His followers believe him implicitly, even though they see the deception on camera.

Can we put Jesus disciples in the same boat?

I wonder...

 

Just a comment on your last sentence. I have read C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity." It puts forth a compelling and logically based arguement for the existance of God. It's not object based like Strobel's work, but more of a philosophical approach intending to use reason to convey his point. Again, it's a good book worth reading.

Take care,

 

I think there is an important distinction to be made here. Many scholars draw a distinction between inerrant and infallible. Many churches, when referring to the Bible as being inerrant, really mean that it is infallible. When referring to the Bible, inerrancy usually refers to the writing itself. In other words, does the Bible perfectly preserve the actual words of its original authors? Infallibility usually refers to its message, teachings, lessons, etc.

I am of the opinion that the Bible is not inerrant. There are thousands of complete (or mostly complete) New Testament manuscripts in existence. These manuscripts agree on virtually all matters of fact, but some do have subtle differences on minor or secondary issues...others have missing/added data on unimportant or secondary issues. If you read virtually any Bible you will find some passages written in italics. At the bottom of the page there will usually be an alternate rendering of the passage or a note that suggests that some manuscripts lack the passage entirely. Here is a good example of this...we are all probably familiar with the story of the adultress that is taken to Jesus by the scribes. Jesus is asked his opinion on whether the woman should be stoned and he responds by saying, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." This story is documented in the Gospel of John, but the majority of manuscripts do not have this story at all. In fact, most Biblical scholars believe this story to be true, but don't attribute it to John.

I DO believe the Bible to be infallible. In other words, while there may be slight variations in the manuscripts, and while slightly incomplete meanings can be present when the Bible is translated into certain languages (enlish being one of them), the Bible message, in its entirety, remains true and unchanged on ALL issues.

Pug

 

Does that include this set of verses from the Bible?

Deuteronomy 13:7-11?

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must KILL him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yaweh your God..."

If the Bible is infallible, as you declare, then what is it that sets us apart from the Muslim world where they are actively engaged in stoning, killing, and massacres of innocents right now - not the 14th century - but right now?

And why is this ancient text a moral guideline when it advocates the killing of innocents? Innocents who did nothing other than believe in, say Apollo, rather than Yahweh?