Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy

[paul hohulin]

Here is a good article on biblical inspiration and inerrancy.

click on this link:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm

[Will Jones]

Verne,  

I feel bad for you that you seem to be talking to yourself so I'll step in.  You already have an idea of what I have come to see about the Bible on Mythology Thread.

I will quote what I wrote there:

My whole point in bringing up this whole issue is it is dangerous to state the Bible is inerrant in all matters including science because when people focus on the obvious fact that the Bible is NOT inerrant in all things it does keep them from “missing the voice of God” simply due to the fact that many Christians are falsely teaching that the Bible is inerrant.  I have continued this dialogue simply because I passionately believe that the manmade belief in inerrancy is a hinderance or stumbling block to many who would hear the message of the Bible.  And Christians can also be blinded to the voice of reason by assumptions that the Bible is inerrant just as non-Christians can be blinded to the voice of God that the Bible is flawed.  

I did not come to believe that the Bible was errant because I wanted to have an excuse not to believe in God.  I still believe in God!  I also still believe in the message of the Bible, the Bible is still the most influential book in my life and I very highly esteem it as a communicator of spiritual truth and early history.  I don’t think that higher criticism is THE way to understand the Bible, but, to answer MGov’s question, I believe, like Luther, that it takes one’s reason and conscience to understand its message.  My faith has not been lost because I have come to see that the Bible is errant.  On the contrary, the more I read about the Bible, history, etc. the more I feel enriched.  If you only read the Bible and reinforce your beliefs through reading books that support your viewpoints, you will be missing out on a bigger picture.  To refuse to take the time and honestly examine discrepancies—the things that are keeping many people from accepting Christianity because of this manmade belief about inerrancy—is an indication that you only want to believe what you want to believe.  I wanted to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures when I started my studies, but that belief slowly dissolved as I was open and honest with myself that what I was seeing disproved what I wanted to believe.

So I will ask again, How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)  The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.  But you cannot simply ignore it.  Can anyone answer my questions?  It was Peter who suggested that WE deal with each “contradiction” one by one.  So here is the first one.  

I have said my peace.  I have a feeling that the answers will not be forthcoming or satisfactory unless the theory of inerrancy is dropped and the theory of two creation stories is accepted as a strong possibility.  Is there anyone bold enough to answer ALL of these questions and deal with the fact that the Bible, in many places, describes an errant cosmology?

You started to answer these and other questions on the other thread but did not do so in a satisfactory way PLUS you have not gotten back to me on the other discrepancies because you were afraid of "boring" the readers.  Please, like so many Christian apologists, don't selectively deal with issues if you are going to claim that the Bible is inerrant.  Instead of just dealing with theological arguements and skipping over parts of the arguement that cannot be refutted, deal with the facts as they are and ALL the issues that are presented against your assertions.    

Also, you challenged anyone to indict Scripture based on its prophetic witness and, based on recent surfing I have done, I found someone who seems interested in that challenge.  Some skeptics have created a 174-item list of "False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible."  I do not endorse the list as I have not taken the time to examine them yet, but here it is.  http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html
Have a look and tell us what you think.    

ALso, here is 1010 supposed Bible contradictions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html

And another list of how science does not seem to accord with the certain parts of the Bible:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html

It will only take one errant passage to disprove the supposed inerrancy of the Bible.

[MGov]

Verne,

I say Amen to your posts on this thread.

MG

[MGov]

Verne,  

I feel bad for you that you seem to be talking to yourself so I'll step in.

I guess it worked! :

But seriously, ... do let us continue to examine the matters at hand in a spirit of goodwill (no pun intended) and honest inquiry...
Verne

Hey Al,

I think that Verne is showing some signs of old age (oops, I mean maturity).  He's developing quite a keen sense of humor.

MG

[al Hartman]

MGov,

     Re: Verne,  He has always had a great sense of humor, it just gets buried sometimes beneath other things.
     He's been saying for about a week that he needs a break.  It doesn't seem he's taken one, and yet he no longer seems to need it:  He seems refreshed, renewed, and virtually bubbling with "goodwill."
     Now, if we can just convince him to tone down his use of vocabulary to an undergrad level and stop using "insider" terminology...  He's causing me to wear out my dictionary faster than my bible!!!

al             You GO, Verne!!!!!!!  

[MGov]

But seriously, there ae quite a few reading and thinking about these things so I thought a balanced/different perspective to much of what you have posted Will, was very much in order; do let us continue to examine the matters at hand in a spirit of goodwill (no pun intended) and honest inquiry...
Verne

What does 'ae' mean?  Can't be one of Verne's words, it's tooo short.

MG

[al Hartman]

MGov,

     i think "ae" stands for american eagle--  it's embossed on the pocket of a pair of my jeans.

al

[MGov]

Hey All!

We've been inspired, but it hasn't been Biblical.  Must be the time of day/night.

This is serious:

FYI - I discovered this today:
It is a tract about mistakes in the Bible:

http://wayofthemaster.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=244&Category_Code=Booklets

the above url has wrapped so you may have to 'paste' it together to see the tract.

M

[MGov]

What does 'ae' mean?  Can't be one of Verne's words, it's tooo short.
MG

MGov:
"R" you giving me a hard time sister...?!
Verne

My scrabble dictionary says that ae means adj one.
So I learned something.  Amazing!

R U having a hard time brother ...?

agent M, aka MGov

[Will Jones]

Verne you said,

It is my sincere hope that this thread will indeed become a proving ground for the combatants on the subject of Biblical inerrancy.

I do not look at myself as a “combatant,” but as someone engaged in a dialogue.    However, I find it interesting that you are looking at this dialogue as a kind of war to protect “the subject of Biblical inerrancy.”  You have a lot to protect, especially given the fact that so many Christians before the 19th Century did not consider the Bible inerrant!  I am not attacking the Bible.  On the contrary, Christians who preach the Bible is inerrant have unknowingly sabotaged the spiritual authority of the Bible because many people do not regard the Bible as inerrant nowadays and scoff at how Princeton Scholars and Fundamentalist foolishly have attempted to exalt the Bible as an authority in matters of spirituality and science.  I have described my position in detail in the mythology thread.

MGov, to answer your question again, I use my reason and conscience to understand the message of the Bible and I have already in many places described that message—God loved us and will forgive us and gave us Jesus to show us the way to an abundant life with God, etc.  In another place I wrote, ”many Christians such as Luther, Augustine, Origen and others did not discount the message of the Bible simply because they believed it erred in matters of fact.  The Bible relays truth, not THE TRUTH.  It contains what scholars call the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.”  

There is no doubt the Scriptures are inspired as it says in 2 Timothy, but inspiration does not imply “inerrancy,” a word that was only used in the early 19th Century to by Princeton Scholars and later Fundamentalists used.  I have shown in other threads that many famous Christians such as Luther and the early Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine DID NOT accept the Bible as perfect, but did accept its overall message.  Inerrancy is a 19th Century theological term that uses inspiration as a jumping point.  To believe the Bible is perfect in every word is a relatively new development in Christendom and it has turned many people off to Christianity because they can’t or won’t accept the Bible as inerrant in matters of science because there are plenty of verses that betray the fact that ancients were, in many cases, wrong in matters of science.  

THE LINK YOU GAVE, “The Bible is Full of Mistakes,” presented a very poor argument about the “supernatural origin of the Bible.”  This is a prime example of how Christians are often guilty of accepting selective facts and ignoring others when they attempt to push their relatively new theological theory of inerrancy.  Here is my reply to the poor argument presented in your link:  http://wayofthemaster.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=244&Category_Code=Booklets

The first reason for a belief in the supernatural origin of the Bible was signs of the end times, signs that skeptics say have always been present.  This argument really goes nowhere because it depends what you want to believe.  The skeptics quote sources from writers in the last two thousand years that claim it is the end times and that immorality, etc. has escalated.  This argument will not convince anyone because it is a matter of interpretation—applying events described in the Bible to present day trends.  When given the example of the rebirth of Israel, skeptics might counter that Jesus said in the penultimate verse of the Bible that he was coming “quickly” and that the early believers—for hundreds of years—thought they were living in the end times.  The point is, Christians focus on INSPIRATION (and wrongly on inerrancy) whereas skeptics focus on the fact that HUMANS WROTE THE BIBLE.  God inspired humans to write the Bible, humans who communicated the message of God but wrote according to their cultural understanding.  Inspired YES; perfect NO.  As it says in 2 Timothy, all Scripture is inspired (not written by God) and is profitable for establishing doctrine and how to live your life before God, NOT perfection in all matters such as science.  

The second reason given to accept the Bible as supernatural in origin demonstrates how Christian apologists are often very selective when it comes to presenting their argument and very selective in seeing other verses that state the contrary:
“Second, the Bible was written thousands of years ago but has many scientific and medical facts, such as the earth’s free-float in space, the earth being round, principles of sterilization and quarantine, etc., proving it is supernatural in origin.”
There are many more passages in the Bible that talk about the earth being flat and immovable and even immovable with pillars.  I have already written in another thread that the writers of the Bible displayed a very errant understanding of cosmology in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible.
Here is an interesting article you might want to read later:   http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm.  As I wrote on the other thread,

If you read Genesis 1, the earth is considered flat because there is this dome or firmament over the earth that holds back the waters above, waters that later fell through “floodgates of the sky” or “windows of the heavens” (Gen. 7:11) in the two flood stories of Noah.  So far, the Hubble telescope has not found this firmament of water in the heavens or any windows of heaven.  Ancients did not understand the water cycle or what lies beyond our sky.  This is not just poetic or figurative or phenomenological language because extra-Biblical writings have demonstrated that the ancient Hebrews and other cultures saw the earth as a kind of flat object (the four corners of the earth, etc.) that had a dome or sky above it much like a futuristic city with a dome over it might look like on Mars or the Moon, but Genesis 1 says that there is water above this firmament that God divided.   Have a look at http://www.siena.edu/tamburello/Cosmology%20of%20Genesis%201.ppt that gives a diagram of the universe that Hebrews envisioned.   And please don’t bother quoting Isaiah 40:22 because it states that God sits above the circle of the earth which can also be interpreted as the dome of the firmament AND this is only one verse versus the many verses that describe a flat earth.

The point is, the ancient writers of the Bible thought there was water magically held back by God in the sky, that God lived in heaven, that there was a type of hell in the earth, that it rained when God opened the windows of heaven, etc.  This ancient cosmology is WRONG.  If you accept Genesis 1 as fact as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to do, the fact is the Bible betrays the fact that the writers wrote according to their understanding at the time, an understanding that we know today is wrong.  Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant because it describes a cosmology that is errant.

Therefore, this second argument can also be used to assert that this proves the Bible is not “supernatural in origin.”  If you are going to claim, like so many Christians do who believe in inerrancy, that a few selectively picked passages prove the supernatural origin BUT ignore so many other passages that are contrary to the passages you have focused on, you open yourself to ridicule by making a claim that can easily be turned on its head to prove the exact opposite.  This is dishonest scholarship and demonstrates a type of blindness—a refusal to incorporate all facts and arrive at a logical conclusion.  
   
Thirdly, it gives answers to mankind’s greatest mystery—the reason we die.  
Other revered books also give their take on why humans die so this does not make the Bible unique.  

The tract said, "If I didn’t believe in trucks and stood on the freeway, it wouldn’t change reality." Well... If you believe in inerrancy and tried to argue your point, it wouldn’t change reality.

[Will Jones]

So far, nobody has tried to deal with the questions I put forward on this and the other thread because they are clear contradictions if you believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  To make it easier, here they are again in different form that I accept people to attempt to deal with if they will continue to claim inerrancy:

(1) How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER ONE.

(2) How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER TWO.  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)  The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.

(3) How do you explain away all of the errant references to cosmology in Genesis and other books of the Bible?  Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect view of Cosmology—YES!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE.  (Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to what their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.   Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, PHENOMENOLOGOICAL view of Cosmology—YES!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE .)  

It only takes ONE contradiction in the Bible to disprove the manmade notion of inerrancy.  Here are three very clear contradictions and we have not moved very far beyond the first few chapters of Genesis.  Conclusion:  the Bible is not inerrant because it was written by men who were inspired by God to communicate the message of God.

I have made my point and will rest my case unless someone can deal with ALL THREE contradictions.  If you accept that Genesis has two creation stories, there is still on very big contradiction—the ancients phenomenological understanding of the universe is wrong or imperfect; therefore, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science and to claim otherwise is to be deceived and cause a stumbling block to those who might accept Christianity if it were not for a false “selling” of the Bible.

[al Hartman]

     i bring this over from another thread, because it is equally applicable here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because, generally speaking, i am far out of my depth in these discussions, i have been more a reader than a poster on this topic.    When i did venture forth to post questions, the parties of whom i directly asked them seemed to either dance around the subject without directly answering OR occupy themselves with answering on behalf of their "opposition" instead of themselves.
    The home in which i was reared taught me long ago that some people would rather argue than not, and to them it is more important to win than to learn.  But there is enough of the optimist in me that i yet hope to elicit an honest answer, and so i post a question once again:

    Will has told us repeatedly that inerrancy regarding the bible is a concept created in the nineteenth century, and that prior to that time (the first 1,800+ years of Christianity) God's people accepted that the message of the bible was the truth of the gospel, and the specific wording was not an issue.  He has said that the early councils that were convened to decide matters of doctrine were held because the manuscripts available at that time were not considered to be inerrant.  Furthermore, Will tells us that later key men in church history, e.g. Augustine, Origen and Luther did not have a belief in the bible as being flawless.

    So here is my twofold question of Tom, Verne, or anyone professing that the bible is inerrant:

A.] Is there any EVIDENCE to refute Will's claim that inerrancy was not generally claimed prior to its initiation by the Princeton Scholars in the 1800s?  And, if so, please tell us SPECIFICALLY what that evidence is.  This has not been adequately addressed, if at all.

B.] If there is no such evidence, i.e. if the early church, and God's people for centuries thereafter, have triumphed and progressed WITHOUT the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, why is it suddenly so essential that we accept it?  If God was able to keep and to bless the redeemed for all those centuries without such a belief, can't/won't he continue to do so?

    This is as honest a question as i know how to ask.  
i have the greatest admiration ("awe" would not be too strong a term) for studious and scholarly people, particularly saints.  But it is not my forte.  My I.Q. is supposedly above average, but my abilities as a student are quite limited, and often strained.  What intellectual pursuits some deeply love and enjoy cause me intense headaches without producing a high-grade result.
    So PLEASE try to answer so all may understand.  We are already impressed with your background, standing and vocabulary.  You don't need to impress us-- just teach us...

Expectantly,
al Hartman

[Will Jones]

Verne,

I agree with your exhortation to be careful readers of God’s word, but you need to follow your own advice.  The verse you quote is Genesis 2:1 and then you tell me to “there is no view whatever to sequence...that was already given in chapter one. Note ordinal and sequential descriptors are used there only.”  You put special emphasis on “only YET “the seventh day,” an ordinal and sequential descriptor, is used in verse two and three of Genesis 2.  You have just stumbled over your own foot.    

Textual Critics think that the second account of creation begins in verse 4:  “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven” (NASB).  Genesis 2:4 and onwards claims to be “the account”—a separate creation story than Genesis 1-2:3—in “the day,” not the seven days, that “the LORD God made earthy and heaven.”  Yet you state wrongly that “Genesis 2 is not an account of original creation” but this is not what Genesis 2:4 says and what so many Biblical scholars believe!  Why would Genesis 2 mention again about God creating different things as if we have forgotten them after reading Genesis 1?  Simple:  because they are separate stories.  If you compare the two creation stories, there is a problem if you think that Genesis 1-3 is a literal and coherent account of creation.

So I don’t agree with your theory that order does not matter in the second creation story which starts at Genesis 2:4.  Even if you don’t agree with the order contradictions, do you not think it would take more than a day to name all the animals that exist and existed (including the dinosaurs?), realize that none of them were God enough as a helper of Adam, Adam falls asleep, and God creates Eve.  That is one full day especially if you add up the time it would take for Adam to name all the animals of the past and present!   And what about those poor dinosaurs and the age of the earth?  

I suggest you rethink your attempt at dealing with the first of many contradictions because you have contradicted yourself in attempting to deal with a clear contradiction.  

You wrote,  

The point I am making is that errantists must necessarily take the postion that God is not the author of Scripture.
What ever you think of Will''s position, one has to respect his diligence and consistency. Errantists must inevitably relegate the certainty of their salvation to the foggy hinterlands of nervous, hopeful uncertainty.
Those of you standing on the sidelines I would like to encourage you to use the brain and intellect God gave you to wrestle with these matters. We are ehxorted to study to show ourselves approved unto God...Get out your lexicons, word studies etc. and let us see some thoughtful posts to Will's challenges...contend for the faith...!!!
Verne

My reply:  Men, inspired by God, are the authors of Scripture… At least, that is what the Bible says.  Do you have the gift of prophecy to be able to state that I “relegate the certainty of [my] salvation to the foggy hinterlands of nervous, hopeful uncertainty” simply because I believe that the Bible is not inerrant in matters of 21st Century science?    No, I have already told you I believe in the message of the Bible and that believing in an inerrant Bible has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s salvation.  Contend for the faith?  Have I not been arguing that falsely advocating that the Bible is inerrant in matters of science is a stumbling block to those who might accept the faith?  To make a belief in inerrancy synonymous with believing in the gospel like so many Christians do turns people off to the Bible because they see the Bible is filled with references to an archaic cosmology that we know today is false.  

[Will Jones]

Verne,

You have an interesting habit of guessing what I am thinking and then attempting to think for me by following a line of thinking that you think that I might be thinking.  Please stop it.  

Will you cannot have it both ways. Either God is fully responsible for the Scripture he gave us or He is not. Saying it is authored by men inspired by God skirts the issue, Whose message is it?

I have never asked to have it both ways:   Men, inspired by God, are the authors of Scripture and communicated the message of God.  The message of the Bible rises above the different author's cultural understanding and writing styles: the Bible communicates the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  You can read a letter of your mother or wife and the message will be:  I love you and miss you, even though she may have been wrong on matters of science and history as she related IN GREAT DETAIL what she had been doing that week.  THE MESSAGE versus SPECIFIC DETAILS that may betray human fallibility.

I have already wrote about my perception of inspiration in an earlier post:

I have a much broader notion of inspiration than most Fundamentalists do.  I believe that God has inspired more than just the books of the Bible.  Early Christian groups believed that certain books they used were inspired.  I also believe that God still inspires people to write things.  Will anyone disagree with me that the poem "Footprints" has not been inspired in some way by God?  Have you ever felt "inspired" to do something because you felt enthusiastic or lead to do something?  "Enthusiastic" comes from two Greek works meaning "the indwelling of God."  But I am getting ahead of myself and will describe how I believe God can inspire us today after I deal with the notion that inspiration = inerrancy.
 
The verse I referred to above in 2 Timothy is often linked to the word "the breath of God" or "God-breathed" that is used in Genesis 2 (the second creation story) where God breathed life into the clay that became human.  Some use this possible link to argue that God made Adam and Eve perfect so that means the Scriptures are perfect.  This is a giant leap in logic.  God made them "complete" or "perfect" as humans beings who are not capably of God-like perfection in all their thoughts, words and actions.  Well, if you want to believe that perfection here means the same as inerrancy, Adam and Eve were also human and they were capable of making mistakes and did make mistakes because they were given free will.  They did not have perfect knowledge or perfect writing abilities as far as we know.  God, after giving them the breath of life, never controlled them or make them act certain ways.  Just as I do not believe God controlled the writers of Scripture when they penned the Books of the Bible and the other non-canonical works that were and still are in existence.

Now we get to HOW Scripture was written.  I have written short stories, essays, books, and novels.  There have been times when I felt so inspired and the words came to me like a kind of magic.  However, I have made many technological mistakes and errors in fact, spelling, grammar, etc. when in this kind of state.  Poets and playwrights, especially in the time of Wordsworth and Coleridge, had much to say about this mystical kind of inspiration.  This could be the kind of inspiration that the Bible is talking about.  This is NOT a kind of automatic writing.  My personality, ideas, knowledge of the present world, my personal biases, etc. still shone through my writings.  Did God dictate Scripture to the ancients in a way that compelled them to write perfectly?  The Vatican II document Dei Verbum states that "God" is the "author" of Scripture (and the Catholics have a different notion of Scripture than do the Protestants!) but the writers are "true authors" of what they have written: "God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted."  Thus, the authors "made use of their powers and abilities" when writing according to the knowledge of their time, e.g., they used incorrect cosmological references, etc.  If you continue reading the document, you see that "those things which He wanted" were "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation," not inerrancy in matters of science, etc.!  The context of 2 Timothy is that God inspired the Scriptures to be profitable/good for matters of doctrine and spiritual practice, not to be inerrant in matters of science and history.

Inspiration, in my mind, does not mean perfection like Fundamentalists do when they (more or less) lump inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy into the same boat to attempt to prove their relatively modern stance on how to interpret the Bible.  As I have said before, church history that demonstrates Christians made comments on errancy in the Bible, modern science that shows the cosmological views of the ancients to be incorrect, and the Bible itself that never claims to be inerrant demonstrates that the Bible was written by humans who are not perfect because there are discrepancies in the Bible if the reader is observant and honest to themselves, discrepancies that some have made an attempt to deal with.  Some can be argued away; others cannot.

Even though you feel you have dealt with the first two contradictions in your mind, you still have not dealt with the third contradiction and you never will because the Bible is filled with unscientific references to an ancient cosmology we know today to be false.

(3) How do you explain away all of the errant references to cosmology in Genesis and other books of the Bible?  Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect view of Cosmology—YES or NO?  YES and this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE.  (Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.   Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, PHENOMENOLOGOICAL view of Cosmology—YES!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE .)  

[MGov]

See section on inerrancy and contradictions:
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

M-A-P-S to Guide You through Biblical Reliability
by Hank Hanegraaff
http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Countering the Critics: Refuting alleged Bible errors
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#contradictions

Apologetics:
http://www.gospelcom.net/spiritual_walk/faith_mind/