Biblical Inerrancy

Midwestguy · Post by **Midwestguy** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:07 am

There are times when people talk about the "inerrancy" of the Bible. Is there a commonly agreed definition of the word? Does it mean the Bible is without error? If so, which manuscript does one rely on to arrive at this conclusion?

For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

I remain that curious but confused Midwest Guy.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:08 am

micatala wrote:
perplexed101 wrote:why not? what if the intention is to take it literally since both accounts are congruent? if according to a frame of reference is needed for at least a consistency of both to match.
What 'both accounts' are you referring to?

both hebrew and chinese depictions of genesis both accurate in comparison. It goes beyond coincedence, i will see if any prominent figures have anything to state in regards. So far i'll post three, two of which are the ones investigating and the last agrees with the conclusions.
The following is in conjuction with the genesis find within pictorial language.

Dr. Nelson
Ethel R. Nelson, M.D
Dr. Gene Scott

by Ethel Nelson

Mystery concerns the 450-year-old Temple of Heaven complex in Beijing, China. Why did the emperors sacrifice a bull on the great white marble Altar of Heaven at an annual ceremony, the year’s most important and colourful celebration, the so-called ‘Border Sacrifice’? This rite ended in 1911 when the last emperor was deposed. However, the sacrifice did not begin a mere 450 years ago. The ceremony goes back 4,000 years. One of the earliest accounts of the Border Sacrifice is found in the Shu Jing (Book of History), compiled by Confucius, where it is recorded of Emperor Shun (who ruled from about 2256 BC to 2205 BC when the first recorded dynasty began) that ‘he sacrificed to ShangDi.’ 1

Who is ShangDi? This name literally means ‘the Heavenly Ruler.’ By reviewing recitations used at the Border Sacrifice, recorded in the Statutes of the Ming Dynasty (AD 1368), one may begin to understand the ancient Chinese reverence for ShangDi. Participating in this rite, the emperor first meditated at the Temple of Heaven (the Imperial Vault), while costumed singers, accompanied by musicians, intoned:

‘To Thee, O mysteriously-working Maker, I look up in thought. … With the great ceremonies I reverently honor Thee. Thy servant, I am but a reed or willow; my heart is but that of an ant; yet have I received Thy favouring decree, appointing me to the government of the empire. I deeply cherish a sense of my ignorance and blindness, and am afraid, lest I prove unworthy of Thy great favours. Therefore will I observe all the rules and statutes, striving, insignificant as I am, to discharge my loyal duty. Far distant here, I look up to Thy heavenly palace. Come in Thy precious chariot to the altar. Thy servant, I bow my head to the earth reverently, expecting Thine abundant grace. … O that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to accept our offerings, and regard us, while thus we worship Thee, whose goodness is inexhaustible!’2

Thus we find the emperor worshipping ShangDi. Can we possible trace the original intention of this magnificent ceremony of antiquity? As the emperor took part in this annual service dedicated to ShangDi, the following words were recited, clearly showing that he considered ShangDi the Creator of the world:

‘Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and moon to shine. You, O Spiritual Sovereign, first divided the grosser parts from the purer. You made heaven. You made earth. You made man. All things with their reproducing power got their being’ 3

For the Christian, the above recitation sounds strangely familiar. How closely it reads to the opening chapter of the biblical Genesis! Note the similarity with excerpts from the more detailed story as recorded in the Hebrew writings:

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. …

‘And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas. …

‘And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. …

‘So God created man in His own image; …’ (Genesis 1:1-2, 9-10, 16, 27-28)

ShangDi, the Creator-God of the Chinese, surely appears to be one and the same as the Creator-God of the Hebrews. In fact, one of the Hebrew names for God is El Shaddai, which is phonetically similar to ShangDi. Even more similar is the Early Zhou pronunciation of ShangDi which is ‘djanh-tigh’ [Zhan-dai].4 Another name for their God which the ancient Chinese used interchangeable with ShangDi was Heaven (Tian). Zheng Xuan, a scholar of the early Han dynasty said, “ShangDi is another name for Heaven (Tian)”.5 The great philosopher Motze (408-382 BC) also thought of Heaven (Tian) as the Creator-God:

‘I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk so that the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and river, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man’s good or bring him evil.’ 6

How did ShangDi create all things? Here is one further recitation from the ancient Border Sacrifice rite:

‘When Te [ShangDi], the Lord, had so decreed, He called into existence [originated] heaven, earth, and man. Between heaven and earth He separately placed in order men and things, all overspread by the heavens.’ 7

Note that ShangDi ‘called into existence,’ or commanded heaven and earth to appear.

Compare this with the way the Hebrew text describes the method of creation by El Shaddai, who, we suspect, is identical with ShangDi, and the similarity in name and role would suggest:

‘… by the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. … For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast’ (Psalm 33:6, 9).

We have not yet explained the reason for the emperors’ bull sacrifice to ShangDi. Let us compare this Chinese sacrifice with the instruction given by God to the Hebrews:

‘Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD’ (Leviticus 9:2)—a practice which began in earliest times (Genesis 4:3,4; 8:20).

The origin of the Border Sacrifice would appear to be explained in the book, God’s Promise to the Chinese.8 The authors, Nelson, Broadberry, and Chock have analyzed the most ancient forms of the pictographic Chinese writing and found the foundational truths of Christianity. In these ideograms, which date from before the time of Moses—we have the entire story of creation, the temptation, and fall of man into sin, and God’s remedy for sin in the animal sacrifices, which pointed to the coming Savior, Jesus Christ. All the elements of the Genesis narrative are found recorded, and still in use, in the Chinese character-writing.

The associated box shows some startling realities about the written Chinese language, indicating that we are all related—and not so long ago. All people in the world, not just the Chinese, are descended from the inhabitants of Babel, the first civilization after the Flood. God first gave His promise of a coming saviour, the ‘Seed of the Woman,’ in Genesis (3:15). The foreshadowed sacrifice of the coming Lamb of God, Creator and Saviour, is as old as mankind.

Should a Chinese person tell you that Christianity is a ‘foreigner’s religion,’ you can explain that the Chinese in antiquity worshipped the same God as Christians do today. Like the Hebrews often did, the ancestors of today’s Chinese wandered off after false gods; the memory of who their original God was dimmed with time.9 The ancient Chinese script gives powerful evidence for the historical truth of Genesis.

Recommended Resources

God's Promise to the Chinese (Softcover)
Confirms the idea that the ancient Chinese indeed incorporated an unusual knowledge of sacred history into their written language.

References
NOTE: For more technical details, see The Lamb of God hidden in the ancient Chinese characters (PDF) from Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(1).

See also: Chinese Characters and Genesis for large printable versions of Chinese Characters that show that the ancient Chinese knew the gospel message found in the book of Genesis.

James Legge, The Chinese Classics (Vol. III), pp. 33–34, The Shoo King: Canon of Shun, Taipei, Southern Materials Centre Inc., 1983 Return to text.
James Legge, The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Register Office, pp. 24–25, 1852. Return to text.
Ref. 2 p. 28. Return to text.
Schuessler, Axel, A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese, University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, pp. 123, 528, 1987. Return to text.
Lung Ch’uan Kwei T’ai Lang, Shih Chi Hui Chu K’ao Cheng, Taipei, Han Ching Wen Hua Enterprise Co. Ltd., p. 497, 1983 Return to text.
The Works of Motze, Taipei, Confucius Publishing Co., p. 290. Return to text.
Ref. 2, p. 29. Return to text.
Read Books Publisher, Dunlap, UN, USA, 1997. Return to text.
This was of course the near-universal experience of all tribes and nations. Return to text.
Ethel Nelson, M.D., F.A.S.C.P., is a retired pathologist living in Tennessee who was a medical missionary in Thailand for 20 years. Return to text

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:19 am

Gene Scott is hardly what I would call an authority on Chinese religion. I remember watching his program a long time ago. He would sit, staring at the TV camera for long periods of time, silently smoking cigars. When he did speak it was to ask for money, something like "If I've taught you anything, then you should send me $1,000." I never saw him teach anything though. He mostly just smoked and stared. When he was in a good mood he would play "Amazing Grace" on the saxophone. I thought he was probably drunk.
I don't know much about Ethel R. Nelson, except that she's a YEC. I find it interesting that she references Velikovsky, whose work has been demonstrated to be pseudoscientific claptrap. Does anyone who is not a flake support this Chinese/Hebrew creation idea?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:31 pm

I did do a little search on Ethel Nelson and the Discovery of Genesis book. The idea does seem quite interesting, and at first I could see as plausible that there might be some common elements to the stories based on some commonalities of events.

However, upon further investigation . . . .

I had a hard time finding any independent corraboration of Kang and Nelson's work. In fact, here is some information refuting Kang and Nelson. I don't know too much about Babinski other than he seems to be a rather caustic opponent of creationism.

Here is some further information indicating that Nelson and Kang's analysis of Chinese characters is highly flawed. The problems include not taking into account the often drastic changes that characters have undergone over thousands of years of history, and their misinterpretation of phonetic elements as semantic elements.

THe 'ark character' among others are specifically addressed as being flawed. Follow the links at the bottom of the page to "flood" etc.

Here is the author's (Mike Wright) expertise, as found on Babinski's website. They seem to be at least the equal of Nelson's.

I spent most of my 20 years in the US Army as a translator of Mandarin Chinese and Japanese documents. I have also studied, to a greater or lesser extent, Taiwanese (Holo/Hokkien) Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Malay/Indonesian, Vietnamese, Spanish, German, and French. I attended the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center at the Presidio of Monterey, California for 47-week courses in Mandarin (1963), Japanese (1967-68), and Egyptian Arabic (1973). I also spent a year there (1979-80) on a team writing Mandarin extension courses for interrogators. I lived in Taiwan for 20 months (1964-66) and in Japan for 7.5 years (1968-72 and 1976-79). Unfortunately, I didn't get much chance to use my Arabic, so my skills have completely atrophied. I haven't worked as a translator since 1980 and I'm not a linguist, but I'm still fascinated by languages and linguistics. I'm very interested in learning about Chinese linguistics, especially dialectology and reconstructions of earlier stages of the language. I'm also interested in Japanese as it relates to the reconstruction of Chinese. The Chinese dialect that interests me most is my wife's dialect, Taiwanese Holo. I've put up a Web page on the missionary romanization system, which is the most common system used for Holo.

You referred earlier to the problem of 'group think.' I think that is exactly what we see here. Nelson came into her study with a pre-disposition to believe in her particular interpretation of Genesis, and she and her cohorts managed to convince themselves that there is this link through fanciful interpretation. Now, other's are quoting it as if it is authoritative (eg. the Genesis site). At least that's how I read the information I have found.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 pm

micatala wrote:You referred earlier to the problem of 'group think.' I think that is exactly what we see here. Nelson came into her study with a pre-disposition to believe in her particular interpretation of Genesis, and she and her cohorts managed to convince themselves that there is this link through fanciful interpretation. Now, other's are quoting it as if it is authoritative (eg. the Genesis site). At least that's how I read the information I have found.

I tend to agree with you, micatala. There are many links that people have reported between biblical and other writings, which they tend to use to imply that the bible is historically and scientifically accurate. To do so, it seems to me, it is necessary to read these other sources metaphorically. It seems to me that it is also necessary to read the bible metaphorically. I see no possible literal interpretation of:

"The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."

If the earth had no form, how could it have either a face or something deep?

It is writing like this that forces me to agree with you, that Genesis cannot be considered to be historically or scientifically accurate. Rather, it speaks to us of a spiritual beginning and the spiritual relationship of humans and god.

There are several possible interpretations we can come up with. One has already been suggested: that there were hundreds of years of oral tradition before scripture was put into writing. Oral tradition is notorious for modification with time. A second interpretaiton is that god presented Genesis to the people of roughly 2000 years ago in terms that they would understand. How could he give them a scientifically accurate account of their origins if they knew nothing of molecular biology and genetics? A third is that god purposely chose to make the bible sound like it contradicts his creation, as a way of tricking us. Which is the "real" story, the one in metaphorical writing, or the one recorded in solid rock? Perhaps he's testing us to see if we're smart enough to figure out how he really did it. The last interpretation is that scripture is intentionally difficult to pin down, precisely so that it will continue to speak truly of our spiritual relationship with god even as we learn that the stories we read on the surface are far too simple to account for the reality of the world.

It is inconceivable to me that god would tell us "this is how I did it," and have his account differ from the actual creation itself. It makes no sense. Given the obvious clues that are in Genesis that the account is metaphorical, I place my bets on god's creation itself. Study the world, and see what it tells us.

What are those obvious clues? Well, having "the face of the deep" in some sort of void that has no form, is a pretty strong clue. So is the bit about the flood destroying every living thing except those in the ark, and then having Noah send out a dove, which brings back an olive leaf from a living thing that, obviously, wasn't destroyed. The bible may be inerrant, but only if we read it metaphorically.

It's a funny thing...when we read it metaphorically, as a description of our spiritual place in the world rather than our physical place, then suddenly there's no conflict between the bible and science, and there's no reason to struggle to find bizarre ways to pretend that evolution can't be true.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:57 pm

you are going to mix evidential analysis in conjunction with a frame a reference to speculation? that dont compute. Thats like stating two different colors of toothpicks miles apart at one time were both into the same side of beef but then that shouldnt be taken literally. It was ingrained into the very written words they used as well. Whether you choose to believe the egg came first or not is not in question here.

Lets find bizaare ways to find evolution to be true but then keep changing the theories that bind it but still clinging for dear life to it. What should be done is to have an objective view towards evidence and be drawn to it not away just because you feel comfortable with evolution. It is neither scientific to hold on to presuppositions and circular reasoning but rather what is evident in conjuction with a frame of reference. If there is evidence on both sides of the aisle then the only proposition would then be to keep finding evidence for both sides of the aisle. i would like to be fair in the matter at the very least even it means to feel uncomfortable.

phoenixfire · Post by **phoenixfire** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:27 am

I would agree that Genesis was intended to have a historical basis, but I do not think we can take it as literal history. I think most scholars would agree that there was a substantial oral tradition pre-dating the writing of the Genesis account. Oral traditions are quite often mythic, even when the based on what are or are perceived by the story-tellers to be actual events.

I do not think Genesis was written after many years of oral tradition. Most (conservative at least) scholars, I think believe that Genesis was given to Moses while he was on Mountain Sinai receiving the ten commandments. If so, then Genesis is the direct words of God, though I'm sure some of the meaning is lost when translated into English and the read from our cultural background.

With regards to to the six-day interpretation, there is certainly NOT any kind of consensus among scholars that 'yom' must mean a 24 hour day. This is true among today's scholars as well as those in the past. For example,

No, yom does not always mean a literal 24 hour day, but it does everywhere else in scripture when paired with a number or terms like 'day and night'. It is paried with both in Genesis. Do you agree with that fact or no? If that is true, do you not agree that that is good reason to interpret the days as 24 hour days?

I suppose this is true of some, but certainly not in my case. I have made something of a study of the creationism versus evolution controversy and although I would not claim to be an expert, I clearly find that the overwhelming weight of evidence and logic supports evolution. In my view, the problem of 'group think' can work both ways, and is certainly very prevalent among some churches and denominations who refuse to consider evolution in any kind of objective way.

Obviously there are a lot of other threads on the forum that would address potential 'problems' with evolution. My own view is that the problems are minor and are overblown by the opponents of evolution. I would also say that, on a scientific basis, creationism, particularly young earth creationism, has orders of magnitude more problems. Multiple independent dating techniques show the earth to be much, much older than 6 to 10 thousand years, for example.

If you would like, we could take up the theological/biblical issues in the Copernicus thread (I am shamelessly promoting the thread every chance I get ).

I also have spent a fair amount of time looking at both sides of the evolution/creation issue. I just want to ask quickly (if I reply I will try to post in another thread that is more appropriate, or you can reply in another thread) what do you see as being the biggest weakness with both evolution and creationism, and also what is the greatest evidence supporting each?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:03 pm

Tilia wrote:Surely ordinary days are intended to be understood, and that any sort of elongation is not. The Israelites cannot have been intended to suppose anything but ordinary days were meant. However, the whole story is not meant to be understood literally, imv. The fat and thin cows in Genesis 41 are intended to be understood as ordinary cows, not as elongated ones, or any other sort of cow, but the ones experienced by the ancients. But of course these cows did not exist, as they were part of a dream.

You are right that 'yom' was intended to be ordinary, 24-hour days. Nowhere in the Bible, where 'yom' is used with a literal (a number), does it refer to anything other than a 24-hour period. It is therefore a bit silly for people to start claiming day-age, etc. when there is simply no justification for it whatsoever.

That said though, it really doesn't matter because the whole creation story is a myth and none of it ever happened.

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:00 pm

That said though, it really doesn't matter because the whole creation story is a myth and none of it ever happened.

I agree; that does not mean that the story is without meaning, though.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:48 pm

I dunno...I know biblical scholars who are quite happy using yom to refer to an unspecified time. Even in English, we often use "day" to refer to an unspecified time, and we use "morning" and "evening" metaphorically remarkably often. Frankly, I don't think we get anywhere by quibbling over the definition of one word. There are larger conundrums in this text, and there is the minor issue that the world itself doesn't match.

perplexed101 wrote:you are going to mix evidential analysis in conjunction with a frame a reference to speculation? that dont compute. Thats like stating two different colors of toothpicks miles apart at one time were both into the same side of beef but then that shouldnt be taken literally. It was ingrained into the very written words they used as well. Whether you choose to believe the egg came first or not is not in question here.

Your metaphors leave me perplexed.

perplexed101 wrote:Lets find bizaare ways to find evolution to be true but then keep changing the theories that bind it but still clinging for dear life to it. What should be done is to have an objective view towards evidence and be drawn to it not away just because you feel comfortable with evolution. It is neither scientific to hold on to presuppositions and circular reasoning but rather what is evident in conjuction with a frame of reference. If there is evidence on both sides of the aisle then the only proposition would then be to keep finding evidence for both sides of the aisle. i would like to be fair in the matter at the very least even it means to feel uncomfortable.

Indeed, let's be fair in the matter. However, this thread isn't the place to discuss the evolution/creation issue (we have another forum for that, with a number of quite relevant threads). We can talk about evidence there as much as we want. Here, I raise it only to contrast hundreds of years of factual descriptions of the earth with the predictions that the Genesis story makes, if we treat that story a scientifically accurate. If it is accurate, then it must describe what we see in the world. That it does not seems to me to be a pretty strong argument that we should look to Genesis for its spiritual meaning, and not for scientific fact.

As Tilia says, though it may be metaphorical "that does not mean that the story is without meaning." What's wrong with looking at it for its deep, truly-significant meaning, rather than looking for meaning only at the level of a children's story? There are many, many examples--even in the bible--for which the story itself is just the surface structure. The meaning is deeper. Why insist that this is not so for Genesis, especially when it puts the interpretation at odds with the facts we find in god's creation itself?

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:19 pm

Your metaphors leave me perplexed.

metaphors can if you let it

Here, I raise it only to contrast hundreds of years of factual descriptions of the earth with the predictions that the Genesis story makes, if we treat that story a scientifically accurate. If it is accurate, then it must describe what we see in the world. That it does not seems to me to be a pretty strong argument that we should look to Genesis for its spiritual meaning, and not for scientific fact.

it seems that you are perplexed after all for i was merely establishing a fact that a solo account of a hebrew genesis is only taken into account while the chinese are depicting the same in comparison.

As Tilia says, though it may be metaphorical "that does not mean that the story is without meaning." What's wrong with looking at it for its deep, truly-significant meaning, rather than looking for meaning only at the level of a children's story? There are many, many examples--even in the bible--for which the story itself is just the surface structure. The meaning is deeper. Why insist that this is not so for Genesis, especially when it puts the interpretation at odds with the facts we find in god's creation itself?

tilia or whomever can state it has metaphorical meaning or whatever they might wish to entail upon it and im implying a possiblity of being more. It dont bother me if you dont believe it one way or the other if being fair to my position.