Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy

[Will Jones]

Would you want to be treated by a doctor from the 18th 0r 19th Century?  No, because they would bleed you to get rid of your bad blood or saw off limbs with bone saws, practices that are clearly outdated in light of our modern world.  Would you trust the knowledge of a doctor or scientist thousands of years ago?  No, not unless you somehow believed that hundreds of years of scientific advances have made us dumber than the ancients.  We know we have made major advances in knowledge in the last one or two hundred years.  I have argued (as other writers have demonstrated at length) that the view of the Bible is a 19th Century argument of the Princeton Scholars.  However, many Christians hold strongly to this view of the Bible that was alive and well in the time when bones of dinosaurs were still thought by many to be the fabled dragons talked about in legends and myth.  This view of the Bible is a fable that is making Christians look like dinosaurs in a modern age.

There are many websites that are clearly showing that the Bible has many apparent and definite contradictions; these websites are concluding that because of these contradictions from a Bible that Christians claim is inerrant, people should not be foolish enough to believe in anything else that Christians say.  I have already quoted many examples but here is one last example of how errant cosmology is often appealed to to discredit the Bible:

Is the earth firm and immovable?

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
http://www.geocities.com/eugenek7/bibleerrors.html

Verne and others have still not dealt directly with the many issues I have brought up concerning errant cosmology in the Bible.  I am not surprised in the least by this because to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible one must deal selectively with the Scriptures and ignore blatant contradictions within the Bible or what we know to be true of the universe from modern, scientific observation (e.g., the Genesis 1 universe versus what we know of the universe; the earth is hung on nothing versus the earth is immovable or has foundations; the earth is flat versus the earth is supposedly round, etc.) Verne has quoted at length a Christian scholar who obviously believes in inerrancy and Verne has (to his satisfaction) dealt with a few issues I have brought up.  I knew he would not pursue this to its conclusion because it would mean that he admit the Bible is errant in certain matters such as cosmology.  

[Will Jones]

We should not expect ancients to present perfectly accurate views on cosmology because they did not have telescopes, etc. to properly observe things.  This does not make them “deceivers” or "wrong" from their limited understanding or even make the Bible any less of a book of divine truth; it simply means the writers wrote according to their cultural understanding that we moderns have come to see was not correct BUT was correct according to their understanding.  However, to claim that something is inerrant in matters of science when it most clearly is not leaves Christians open to attack from those who reject religion as superstition.  By claiming the Bible is inerrant gives anti-Christian critics something big to “prove” that Christians are crazy for believing what they do.  Such a belief in inerrancy asks us to put our faith in ancients who were clearly wrong in how they viewed the world AND such a faith asks us to turn a blind eye to the constant references to this errant cosmology, references that the ancients accepted as facts like the world being flat, immovable, etc.  I will say it one last time--to claim the Bible is inerrant discredits Christianity when one clearly examines the facts which I have presented (in this and the Mythology thread) to the best of my ability and knowledge:

FACT:  None of the early Creeds or Councils advocated a belief in Scripture as inerrant.
FACT:  Believing that the Bible is either errant or inerrant has no bearing on salvation or faith.
FACT:  The Bible never claims it is inerrant.
FACT:  Jesus or Paul never prophesied that THE WORD OF GOD / BIBLE would come.
FACT:  The Bible says the Word of God was Jesus, not a book.
FACT:  The Bible communicates the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  
FACT:  This message in the Bible is clear through the human authors’ writing styles, personalities and cultural understanding—cultural understandings according to their knowledge at the time of writing.
FACT:  We have learned more about the world since the ancient writers of the Bible penned the Bible.
FACT:  The Bible contains ancient references to cosmology, references we know today are outdated and incorrect.  
FACT:  The Phenomenological argument is an attempt to explain away these archaic references by stating that the writers wrote according to what appeared to be true to them—simply another way of saying that the authors of Scripture wrote incorrect statements because they saw things from a limited perspective.
FACT:  Christians have been guilty of selectively choosing certain passages and ignoring others to attempt to sell their views on inerrancy.
FACT:  THE BIBLE NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED so “Truth” cannot be taken directly from it because it must pass through our biases and limited human faculties.  
FACT:  There is/was a wide range of beliefs about Jesus, the Bible, etc. in past and present Christendom.  There are so many views of “The Truth” that it is clear that our version of “The Truth” could very well be wrong.
FACT:  Paul and the Early Church Fathers saw Scripture as inspired—Scripture as they understood it because not all of the Bible had been written or assembled together at the time of their writings.
FACT:  Early Church Fathers such as Origen and Augustine pointed out human errors in the Scripture in terms of discrepancies in events, genealogies, etc.  (I have many links in one of my previous posts so that people may do their own study.)
FACT:  The Bible took hundreds of years (leading up to the Council of Nicea in 325 and after) to be assembled into the form we have today.  (I have given a good timeline to demonstrate this.)
FACT:  Many books, which were widely used by Christians before and after the Council of Nicea, did not make it into the Bible.  (I have many links in one of my previous posts.)
FACT:  Many books in the Bible such as 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation almost did not make it into the Bible because not all Christians accepted them as authentic.
FACT:  A large majority of scholars today do not accept the authenticity of 2 Peter, Hebrews, etc.
FACT:  Luther did not accept James, Hebrews and other books as authentic and divinely inspired.
FACT:  Luther and others pointed out human errors or discrepancies in the Bible like some of the early Church Fathers.
FACT:  2 Timothy 3:16f refers to the OT and says God inspires all Scriptures that are profitable for matters of doctrine and morality—i.e., spiritual truth and authority, not inerrancy in matters of modern science.
FACT:  All other passages in the Bible that are used to defend inerrancy do not refer to the Bible as we know it.  
FACT:  Inerrancy is a word that came into being in the early 19th Century.
FACT:  The Church has believed in the inspiration of the OT Scriptures since its inception (and hundreds of years later the NT once it was widely accepted), but it was not until the 19th Century—when the word inerrancy came into wide use thanks to the Princeton scholars—that people believed the Bible was inerrant in matters of modern science.
FACT:  Inerrancy is a 19th Century theological development that has affected how people view the Bible today.
FACT:  Inerrancy is a theological assumption or interpretation, a kind of stretch or extension of inspiration that the Princeton scholars made in an attempt to protect the authority of the Bible in all matters.
FACT:  The notion of inerrancy comes from MAN, not God.  Christians are to put their trust and faith in God, not in a book.
FACT:  The following syllogism is faulty logic based on an assumption of inerrancy:  God is perfect and God wrote the Bible; therefore, the Bible is perfect. (This is just one of many manmade assumptions that attempt to justify a belief in inerrancy.)
FACT:  There are plenty of times in Scripture, such as the sun standing still or the earth being called  flat or immovable, that clearly shows the Bible was written by humans who wrote according to their cultural knowledge, knowledge we know from observation of the cosmos is errant.
FACT:  The Bible, in many places, is not inerrant in matters of science because it was written by humans who wrote according to their cultural knowledge, knowledge we know from observation of the cosmos is errant.
FACT:  As the link I gave regarding scholars behind the making of the NIV demonstrated, most non-Christians, as well as many Christians now, do not accept the Bible as inerrant.  

MY BELIEFS BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS:  
1. It is foolish to teach that the Bible is inerrant in face of the facts that the Bible never claims to be inerrant, that the Bible was not regarded as inerrant until recently, and that the Bible is very clearly not without error in matters of science, particularly cosmology.
2. To teach the Bible is inerrant (as a requirement of faith/salvation or employment/membership at Christian institutions in some cases) hampers the furtherance of the gospel and discredits Christianity in a society that believes the Bible has discrepancies.  
3. The Bible being errant in matters of science should not affect the fact that the Bible is still inspired by God and profitable in communicating the message of God—the good news of the gospel.

Verne and others, I rest my case and am more than happy to agree to disagree, knowing you have not dealt with all the issues I have brought forth.  But I do find it a bit funny that Verne has called everyone to contend for the faith (as he understands it) and study to show themselves approved yet he has given up on his commitment (either on this thread or the Mythology thread) to clear up the few of many discrepancies I put forward.  Regardless, history and observation of human nature shows that people, like old dogs, don’t like learning new tricks.  Our beliefs often provide security and will not be easily changed because people like to feel secure… I know I did!   We will believe what we want to believe if we consciously or unconsciously refuse to see or believe “truth” beyond the supposed “TRUTH” of our beliefs.  But what is more important—our beliefs or reality, i.e., what is really true?  The scientific method expects us to hold an initial hypothesis or hold our own beliefs, but we are to constantly examine our beliefs through observation, research, experimentation and be willing to change in the facts prove otherwise.    

God help us not to surround ourselves with a kind of comfort zone that provides us with security and “all the answers!”  Yes, we walk by faith but not sight BUT that does not mean we should be blind by refusing to look at what might change our beliefs.  We see darkly at the moment, but we will be in darkness if we refuse to accept the fact that the light in us could very well be darkness.  The truth will set us free only if we keep seeking to have a better understanding of the great puzzle that is reality.

The jury is left to decide and the jury is our own hearts and minds.      

Take care all!  

[sfortescue]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, any frame of reference can be used, and the laws of physics will still hold.  If you choose to consider the earth to be stationary, then the rotation of all the stars of the universe around the earth will produce a kind of gravitational field which reproduces the coriolis force which drives the ocean currents and winds.

Therefore it is not erroneous to consider the earth to be stationary.

But, taking the first of the verses listed below, I Chron. 16:30, "Tremble at his presence all the earth, but the world shall be established, it shall not be shaken." (Rotherham), it says that the earth will tremble, but not the world.  So it comes down to a question of what the words "earth" and "world" mean.  One translation that I looked at renders the second of these as "universe".

[Will Jones]

I think there has been a few misunderstandings.  

Verne, please read my introduction again!    I was not comparing medince and science--I was simply making a point that our knowledge has advanced significantly over time (and yes it is in a state of flux BUT on the whole is getting better and more accurate through observation, experimentation, etc.).  Again, you have attempted to use your misinterpretation of my words to defeat and arguement I never made.  You are now about to go off on a tangent about medical issues without dealing with all the facts I presented below and on the Mythology thread.  I trust you are not trying to steer the course of conversation away from dealing with the contradictions I have put forth.

It was you who asked for details about contradiction number 3 and I gave you a list of 10 things I could think of and you have still not dealt with all of them so I will quote the list again:

As far as what cosmology will be the standard, you ask?  Just the very basics:  
1. The earth rotates and is not immovable or has foundations like the Bible claims in some places.
2. The earth is round NOT flat like the Bible claims in some places.  
3.  That precipitation is a result of the water cycle of evaporation, etc. NOT God opening the windows of heaven like it says in some places.
4.  The sun does not circle the earth.  There are passages that describe the sun circling the earth which caused Luther, Calvin and the Catholic Church to disagree with the ideas of a sun-centered universe.
5.  The sun normally does not stand still and neither does the earth.  If the earth stood still to keep the sun in the sky for a longer period of time it would serious mess up the earth.
6. If (and I say IF) you think heaven is the universe beyond the earth's atmosphere, why do I remember reading that there are winds blowing in the four corners of heaven and heaven is held up by pillars?  There is no wind in space and heaven does not have any pillars or corners that I am aware of.
7. The earth and the universe are apparently much older than the Bible indicates.
8.  It is not possible to reach heaven where God dwells, but ancients like those who built the Tower of Babel and those who wrote that they saw Jesus ascend to heaven thought that it was possible.  Heaven was seen as a real place just above the dome or firmament.  So far, the Hubble telescope has not found God's throne--what we moderns interpret metaphorically but what was once thought of as literal just like hell/Hades was and perhaps still is by some.
9.  That there are no waters above (e.g., Ps. 104:3, etc.) in heaven or space that can pour of windows/floodgates of heaven.
10. That there is no dome or firmament that holds back the waters above like it claims in Genesis and elsewhere.  If this diagram were true (Have a look and click to advance the slide at http://www.siena.edu/tamburello/Cosmology%20of%20Genesis%201.ppt) then the space shuttle would have a hard time orbiting the earth that the ancient writers of the Bible claimed in more than one place was flat, immovable, etc.

Yes, Verne, you have quoted at length the very good suggestions of Dr Gleason L Archer concerning how someone should interpret the Bible, but you still have not dealt with all the specific issues I have put forth.  I am waiting for you to deal with all the issues before I respond.  If I assumed you were finished when you were not then please forgive me.  

Please let me remind you that it was not my idea to put forth contradictions; it was someone else's idea.  I am not interested in trying to be "right" or prove you "wrong" because we all have a different version of "The Truth."  To my satisfaction, 10 years ago and again very recently I have come to see that a belief in inerrancy is unsupportable without selectively dealing with the Bible.  My agenda in writing on this BB is to stress the need to study, do research from a variety of sources, admit we could be wrong, strive to re-examine our cherished beliefs, etc.  So far, nothing you have said in this dialogue has convinced me that any of my points are incorrect.  You still have not dealt with the cosmology of Genesis 1 to my satisfaction.  However, this idea of "frame of reference" is quite interesting, thanks.  

[paul hohulin]

Job 26:7  "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."(KJV)


Hohulin

[paul hohulin]

Here is a good article on the history of inspiration and inerrancy.

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

Hohulin