Is the Bible inerrant or not to be taken seriously?

Yes, it does include those passages. That being said, the Bible has to be viewed as a complete work. Those passages were meant for a specific people at a specific period of time. With Christ came a new covenant between God and man, thus fulfilling the law of the old covenant.

People get into trouble by taking individual passages out of their proper context, or when they look at specific passages outside of the completed work. Some really bad theology is created when this happens. You can't expect to gain a clear picture of any book if you merely skip through and extract a passage here or there.

 

Does this mean, then, that if circumstances changed again you could support actually following through on these passages? Let's imagine a world where Jerry Falwell became president/supreme leader/dictator of this country, all in the name of doing God's will. Which of course should be good, right? What if Supreme Leader Jerry said: "times have changed: God is in charge again. We must either convert or kill all those who refuse." Would you do it?

 

The Bible doesn't support such a possibility. Other people have suggested such things and have started cults, but the Bible is very clear on this issue. The next change is the final judgement.

Pug

 

I see.

The final judgment.

And this is where God comes and personally dispatches those who did not keep his commandments to the lake of fire, right? Forever. Without any chance of forgiveness. No more "second chances". He relieves us humans of our duty to do it on his behalf at this point I guess....

And what are some of these commandments? Do they include, for example, the text I quoted from Deuteronomy? So if my daughter practices yoga, she is damned to the "lake of fire" for worshipping "false gods" even though she may be a saint among people in all other respects?

The Bible is very clear on this issue I guess. Enough said.

 

The "Herem" law in the Old Testament: This is a significant objection to biblical Christianity.

In my opinion, the best answer to this is that, first of all--and to make a seemingly moot point, no one is "innocent." That term is adopted by our culture to describe victimization, which occurs all the time and I am not advocating this. But, the idea of human "innocence," I would say, is a long lost idea since the days of Rousseau. Anyone who has studied 20th century history would say that Nazi Germany included non-participating Germans who, by indirectly supporting the Third Reich and not rebelling against it, are to some degree responsible for the holocaust. In Christian theology, the idea of innocence rubs up against the doctrine of original sin. If sin is pervasive, it wakens in the victim and encourages a cycle of violence. This explains, for Christians, why the victims so often become the oppressors.

The Herem law, the law to annihilate the Canaanites (Amalekites, etc.), was given to Israel by its God, Yahweh. This, at that time, was Yahweh's justice on wicked people who had become "fat on the land." I don't want to get into particulars about how one knows he/she is fighting on the right side, or why it is that opposing forces always believe God to be on their side. Basically, the God of Israel says clearly that Israel is subject to the same judgment as the Canaanites (Dtr. 8:19-20). That is, if they worship the gods of the Canaanites, the same will happen to them, they will be destroyed.

If you read the rest of the OT (or Hebrew Bible), this is precisely what happens. Yahweh carries out judgment against Israel for its wickedness, just as it happened to Canaan. In its wholistic context, then, the OT cannot be used as a prooftext for holy war. Instead, it acts as a warning to such warriors. It questions their perception of justice. It questions their perceptions of truth. It does advocate the destruction of the Canaanites originally, but only inasmuch as they stand for God's lesson to Israel to not turn from Him.

Islam sees its holy book as endorsing a more singular and mono-cultural understanding of truth. Truth, seemingly, cannot escape the Arabic translation of the Koran, so it must be kept in Arabic. I maintain that the Hebrew Bible questions the strict imposition of law and justice with disregard to the "neighbor" and "foreigner." The neighbor may be, in fact, the most important value of all in OT law. Islam, however, as best as I understand it, sees the "neighbor" as a dissenter to be resisted, overcome, excluded or even oppressed. Instead of seeing the neighbor as a criterion for the ethical life (Hebrew Bible), it is a complication, obstacle and unfortunate reality (Koran).

Christians confess that we have found the answer and resource for peaceful inter-religious conflict and discourse in the resurrected person of Jesus Christ.

Chris

 

This is all very interesting, Chris, but the Jehovah of the OT is the same God of the NT. Just because Jesus came and ushered in a new dispensation (if you believfe in such things), it doesn't mean that Jesus was saying to his generation 'Sorry people, but my Old Man got a bit carried away under the old dispensation when he issued orders for mass destruction of his rebellious subjects'.

Yes, the Bible is a complete package, and if you believe in the infallibility of the whole work, you are stuck with all the 'hard' bits, including the God-inspired slaughter of innocents.

And to say the children would not be regarded as innocent because they fall under the guilt of Adam - oh dear, the whole situation gets worse.

It is best to see the Bible like most other religious texts; a written record of the folklore of, in this case, the Hebrew people, where the actual history of these people is lost in myth, history and fantasy. Stories, such as the Garden of Eden, the creation, the first parents, the entrance of sin, the tower of babel, the ark and the flood, etc, etc, are all pre-history accounts, fables, folklore and fantasy to help explain what was then, to a primitive people, the mysterious and the unknown.

The progressive advancement and discoveries of science are unlocking and revealing the truth regarding these matters.The devil was right when he said that if Adam ate of the Tree of Life, he would become knowledgeable; he would think, work, discover and become as a 'god'.

The passages of the slaughters were likewise justified by claiming the direction of their god, mainly to give a sense of their divine calling and election, and their special place in history.

 

In the words of Elmer Martens, God is deliberately enigmatic.

The consistency of God throughout scripture seems undebatable. God's plan for relationship with man has alwasy been based on faith. I don't know why he chose that as His basis, but He did.

Many make the mistake of quoting OT law as a means to discredit inerrancy or attempt to find contradiction in fundamentalist theology (ie if homosexuality is wrong then every prohibition in the Law must be preserved). God contiuously created dispensations in attempt to seperate His people and find a basis for righteousness. Perfection has always been God's standards but only faith (through belief and obedience) could substitute for that required righteousness. The Law set the standard. Even Paul states that without the Law we would not know sin.

It is a poor argument to quote OT Law as a basis for judgment. Judgment (or destruction) has always come as a result of rejecting faith, not in actions or deeds or the lack thereof.

The Bible is NOT a moral guide, collection of allegory & metaphor, nor a history book. It is selected passages meant to relate God's nature, His relationship to His creation, and man's incapability to attain righteousness outside of faith. Selecting passages to create or discredit theology is the effort of the weak of mind.

To the matter of inerrancy (or historicity of the OT for that matter), it is just simply a mistake to assume the unexplained is unexplainable. When a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, he does not give up further scientific exploration, he is motivated to study further.

Scientists once could not explain meteors, eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, or even how a bumblebee flies. Patience, time, and study yeilded the truth. Scientists do not know how life can grow on thermovents in the depths of the sea, but they do not throw in the towel.

As Augustine once said, mistakes come not in the revalation of God, but in the misinterpretations of man. I offer some examples

1) Critics once proposed that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because his culture was preliterate, now we know writing existed thousands of years before Moses.

2) Critics once believed that Bible references to the Hittite people were totally fictional until the Hittites' national library was found in Turkey

The truth (inerracny/infallability) of scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in everything it records.

I believe the original text is inerrant (I also know there genuine mistakes in the copies) because I believe God exists, God cannot err, The Bible is the Word of God, therefore, the Bible cannot err.

 

I am sorry that by raising some rather uncomfortable scriptures, I am revealing my 'weakness of mind'.

As we use to say when I was in the Baptsit church; when preaching, if your point is weak, talk loader. Apparently now they have added the maxim:if your argument is weak, slander the other person.

Character wise, God is full of inconsistencies if you use the Bible as your guide to his nature and his ways. He loves and he hates; he preserves and he kills. He gets sentimental and he loses his temper....just like us.

In fact, that who god is- the creation of our own mind, based upon our own thoughts and action!

It's all so simple...

 

The truth (inerracny/infallability) of scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in everything it records.

Doesn't a book reveal what it records? If a book records incorrect history, it reveals incorrect history. If it reveals god commanding the slaughter of women and children, then it reveals ... I'll leave that one for you to answer!

 

Well, we are certainly all entitled to our opinions. I don't mean to be condascending, but it is clear you are attempting to disect the Bible and the Christian faith without first having a complete or proper understanding of it. It's kind of like trying to have an advanced math debate with someone that has only skimmed over a college algebra book. I am happy to discuss/debate any aspect of the Bible with anyone if they have a genuine interest in learning more, or have at least taken the time to form a sound understanding of the Christian faith.

Pug

 

You have revealed nothing that is uncomfortable or new. You have recited perhaps the most common verses that a skeptic uses to refute Biblical accuracy/inerrancy. You believe you have found cracks in the foundation, so to speak. I have one request...just take a really good Old Testament/New Testament Theology course before continuing this debate. At least then you would be starting with a better understanding of the faith, rather than just aimlessly picking verses out of context and ignoring their relationship to the New Testament.

Pug

 

With all due respect, I find this attitude of "you can't debate this intelligently because you aren't a formal Bible scholar" somewhat disingenuous. For my own part, I was raised in a strict Lutheran community, and had many years of theological instruction as part of my primary and secondary education. I've also been a student of history and archaeology for most of my life - admittedly more as a hobby and interest than as a profession. I think many of us here have similar research and scholarly skills, so to cut off the debate because we haven't attained a sufficient level of sophistication in interpreting these myths according to the "professional method" is just not acceptable.

Instead, let's look at these texts, find bases for agreement, agree to disagree where necessary, and at least admit to one another that (a) there is no physical proof that ANY of this is real and (b) that we should pause and think about reliance on ancient literature as a basis for moral conduct in a nuclear age.

In defense of Christianity, at least there are vast parts of the Bible where one can get lost in the goodness of a spiritual message - one can focus on Christ's Sermon on the Mount and forget about Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The same cannot be said of the Koran, which drips with words of vengeance and retribution towards the infidels on nearly every page.

Top that off with the fact that we are dealing with a culture (Muslim) that nearly everywhere is about as sophisticated in social development as Christians were in the 14th century, except that now they are armed with weapons of great destruction (if not mass destruction), and therein lies our dilemma. Can you imagine what might have happened to our world had the Popes of the 14th century had at their disposal nuclear and biological weapons to be applied freely against heretics, Jews, witches, and pagans?

That's what we're facing with our current enemy - Islam in all its forms. Not just fundamentalist Islam, but all Islam. There really is no difference. There are no words of moderation, no means of interpreting Islam as a religion of toleration. There isn't even any sense of reality in terms of self preservation - to a true believer, burning up the world so long as it takes out all the infidels is a good thing because the infidels will surely go to Hell while the believers in martyrdom will immediately be ushered into a bordello-like paradise as described in the Koran.

That we are still arguing about whose holy book is right, and what to do with those who are using the wrong book, is a travesty in this day and age. Time for the world to grow up, liberalize its religious beliefs, and learn to live in peace.

Do we need a world government? Well, the fact that we can't imagine the state of Ohio attacking the state of Indiana is one reason why we do. Can any of us say the same about China never attacking India? Only through international controls and a broadening of international governing bodies can we ever hope to keep the genies in the bottles where they belong.

The main genie these days is Islam - it must be stopped, dead in its tracks. It must be fought with rationality, cool-headed arguments, and at times military action. It would help tremendously, however, if our side dropped our own religious rhetoric and focused on humanity.

One other thing that should give us reason to stop and evaluate our own culture is our fundamentalist Christian view of the State of Israel. Do fundamentalist Christians support Israel because they like Jews and think they should have a homeland? No! They support it because the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple signals the imminence of the return of Christ to earth to rule, and the ultimate destrution of the Jews in the process!! With friends like that, does Israel really need enemies?

 

My intent was not to slander, poor choice of words on my part -- my apologies -- I do respect your opinion.

If you will give specific instances of inconsistency in God, I will be happy to address them.

My point was that inconsistencies in the Bible are from generally one of these sources: Assuming the unexplained is absolutely unexplainable. Assuming the Bible is wrong until something "proves" it right, confusing interpretation with revelation, failure to understand context, or assuming the actions presented by man who commended by God.

That is why we must read/review/study scripture through an understanding of God's nature, so we can know what it reveals. For example the book of Genesis was not written so man could understand the method of creation, only that God was responsible. The truth of scripture is found in what Genesis reveals to us, not exactly what is recorded (ie silly arguments about literal 6 days vs millions of years)

Just becuase a passage has not yet been proven right, does not automatically make it wrong. I will make you the same offer. If you point to specific contradictions and/or historical inaccuracy, I will be happy to address each of them.

As I pointed out in my original post, numerous times the Bible has been assumed to be in error only to find out through later discovery that in fact it was accurate. Remember only 10% of the tells in Iraq has been excavated. When (or if) we can ever resume discoveries in Iraq, much will be revealed.

 

Good question Adam.

First, I'm in complete agreement with Michael Green. Thanks Michael.

I also find your responses slanderous throughout, Adam. To be honest, you may need a taste of your own medicine to just cool off.

A text that records history may or may not have a positive view of the history it records. I believe Moses had a negative view of the Old Covenant, and wrote the "first edition" of the Pentateuch in anticipation of the New Covenant. If you want to find out more about this view, please explore the threads that I have referred to earlier in this post (or the other one, I can't remember). Nosborne and I had a good exchange on this.

You are full of fallacies Adam. Your greatest fallacy is that logical positivism is obvious, which you never state, but it is written everywhere underneath all your posts. Every agnostic in existence would disagree with your proud assertion that God does not exist. Agnostics are defectors from athiesm. You, on the other hand, think you are thinking. Instead, you are borrowing the plausibility structure of the culture you inhabit and, since it is the dominant one, evaluating everyone else on the grounds of it. Sorry to see this.

Chris

 

<<With all due respect, I find this attitude of "you can't debate this intelligently because you aren't a formal Bible scholar" somewhat disingenuous. >>

I am not suggesting that one needs to be a Bible scholar to hold a debate. I am merely suggesting that a root understanding of how the Bible is put together is vital. Some parts of the Bible were directed to a particular people for a particular time. Other parts were meant for all people for all time. With the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, many of the laws and cereomonial practices have become void. One does not have to be a Bible scholar, but a basic understanding of the Bible is needed to properly debate. What we have here are individuals with little or no historical or theological understanding of the Bible waging attacks on it. That just doesn't make sense.

If we were going to hold a philosophical debate on whether or not there was a God, no background knowledge of the Bible would be necessary. But that's not the topic. The topic is Biblical inerrancy. For this, some basic knowledge is vital.

Pug

 

I think that I basically agree with Adam.

The Bible does depict God behaving in ways that would be universally condemned as totally evil were he a human being. That obviously presents a real difficulty for theologies of Biblical inerrancy.

One could argue in the manner of many theological liberals that the Bible records the Hebrews' understanding of their God, and that their understanding evolved (sorry) from a rather crude and savage tribal war-god to something more appropriate for human worship. But that kind of interpetation does violence to the principle of Biblical inerrancy.

But holding onto Biblical inerrancy leaves us with problem passages like 1Samuel 15:

1Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

1Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

We can talk about context all we want, but this either reveals something of God's moral nature or else it doesn't.

If it doesn't, inerrancy seems to wobble. But if it does, then you have God demanding that his people commit genocide.

I agree with Christopher that slander may be taking place here. But some of us fear that the one slandered is God, if he is depicted as a monster without any objection being made. I hope and pray that if a God exists, he is better than that.

 

How does 1Sam15:1-3 create an inerracy problem. God commanded the destruction of the Amalekites. How is this a problem? From the first chapters of Genesis, God's nature has been consistent. There is blessing for obedience to His plan and there is destruction for rejection of His plan. It has happened time and time again and will happen in its ulitmate form after judgment.

Saul is to be trusted with the punitive destruction of the Amalekites in a holy war. The reason given is clear, the Amalekites' attacks on a vulnerable Israel (See Ex 17:8, Num 14:43).

Two things are very consistent about the scripture you quoted. Destruction awaits those who reject God ---- This has always been God's promise. And (like it or not) our rejection of God has consequences for those close to us. We cannot sin in isolation.

However, this is not a carte blanche for holy war against anyone who opposes God, Judaism, or Christianity. It was a specific command from God to accomplish a specific task.

No inerrancy problem here.

 

Agreed.

Pug

 

My good man,

I hold a Diploma in Biblical studies, an undergraduate degree in Bible and a graduate degree in theology.

I was brought up on 'porridge and the Shorter Catechism' of the Reformed Church, and know the Bible like the back of my hand. So you are accusing the wrong man of being ignorant!

If I wish to debate with you a particular line or thought of theology, I would.

However, what I am trying to highlight are the gross inconsistencies of the Bible, which apparently most on this thread are unwilling to tackle because they are unanswerable.

 

However, this is not a carte blanche for holy war against anyone who opposes God, Judaism, or Christianity. It was a specific command from God to accomplish a specific task.

'A specific command from God' is not just limited to the OT dispensation if you can believe the church.

In fact, all through history, many Christians have gone to war and into battle believing that God had spoken to them and was leading them against His enemies.

The 'commands' of god come through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, so the church believes. Hence, consistent with such belief, Christain have waged their holy wars through history under the guidance of Scripture and the leading of the Spirit. God's slaughters are not just confined to the OT age; they continue even now!

One would also question how God told the prophets and kings of old what his will was. Did he speak to them in an audible voice or did he speak to their 'hearts'? Did they burst out of their tents after a prayer session and say' God has told me to lead you into battle and slaughter all who stand in our way, women and children included'?

Again, I would suggest that the Bible is a mixture of folklore, fantasy, poetry, pre-history and an attampt to provide some coherent account of the history of the Hebrew people and their special relationship with their God. They were the 'elect' nation, so they believed, and all these accounts of God leading them here and there, giving them special commands from the Mount, leading them with pillars of fire and parting seas, and defeating their enemies (their enemies equating to God's enemies) is all a part of this fantastic, but largely unhistoric and untrue, story.