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.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:55 pm

perplexed101 wrote: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.

What could be "more" than imbuing it with a really deep, spiritual meaning that the simple surface story doesn't seem to have? I would think that it becomes far more significant if we read between the lines to what it really means. Otherwise--and I can't imagine that this is so--we'd worry that a mere scientific finding could undermine god's word. I think the bible is stronger than that.

Tilia · Post by **Tilia** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:05 pm

Jose wrote: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.
I agree with you about the use of a single word. I do think, though, that those who say that one day represents so many millions of years are missing the point of Genesis just as much as the young earth creationists do. The YECs are correct, imv, in thinking that 'yom' means a normal day in Gen 1, as the ancients could not have thought it meant anything else. The references to 'morning' and 'evening' do not make the days literal days, however, as the YECs claim. What the Israelites could have thought, and quite possibly did think, was that there was allegory here. After all, in Genesis 2 they read of a talking snake, and sin induced by a fruit, and must surely have suspected that here was difficult spiritual truth made easy to understand by being presented in concrete terms.

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?
I agree very much here. We should fully accept both types of revelation. The findings of science should force us to look at spiritual meaning in early Genesis, to study the Hebrew original more closely, and I think we may see hidden treasures by that means.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:30 am

phoenixfire wrote: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.

This might be a good question to consider, perhaps in a different thread. We could address:
What information do we have about when and by whom Genesis (and the other 4 books of the so called Pentateuch) was written?
What evidence do we have that Moses wrote it?

It has been some years since my college religion classes, but as I recall, many scholars consider the Pentateuch, including Genesis, to be a compilation from a number of authors or sources. There are 4 in particular that are identified by the way in which the refer to God. The sources are often referred to by 'initials' one of which I think is J and I can't remember the others now. I'll see what I can find.

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?

If you go back to page three of this thread, I have some thoughts there on the 'days question.' You might be interested in the Report on Creation Committee of the Presbyterian Church that I have a link to. They are definitely a conservative bunch, but they definitely did not agree that yom in Genesis 1 means a 24 hour day. I guess if they do not agree that this is a fact, I would not either.

Whether yom always means 24 hours elsewhere in scripture when paired with 'day and night' or similar, I could not say, but even if this is so, it wasn't enough to convince the Presbyterians that Genesis days were 24 hours so I would not necessarily agree either. I could certainly see where some might make this interpretation, and I would not say this is unreasonable, if you are only considering scripture.

Part of why I subscribe to the 'non 24 hour days' interpretation is that I find scientific argument for an old earth so compelling. The data seem to me so overwhelming that the earth is old, that there was no global flood, etc. that I find a metaphorical or non-literal approach to Genesis the most reasonable. I also find the historical precedent for changing interpretation based on scientific data, as was done in the Copernican controversy, very compelling.

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?

I usually have trouble with 'biggest' or 'most favorite' type questions but . .

Hmmm. The biggest weakness of evolution. I don't feel like evolution has weaknesses, so much as it has aspects which are not completely explained. This is true of many areas of science (we still don't really understand how gravity works). It is easy to think of things that might be hard to explain. Just today, I was thinking of butterflies. How would evolution produce an organism that goes through a chrysallis or coccoon stage to produce the adult version of the organism? I would be very interested to know how this might have happened.

For creationism, I would have to be honest and say I feel it has lots of glaring weaknesses (if we are talking about the YEC version). Perhaps the biggest is the global flood (and there are several threads on this already). I cannot see how a global flood, occurring sometime in the last 5000 years, could possible have allowed for the existence of the millions of sedimentary layers found around the earth, as well as the thousands of annual ice layers found in places like Greenland.

The biggest strength for the general idea of creationism is the idea of a 'first cause'. It is hard for me to imagine a totally naturalistic explanation for the fact that the universe actually exists. One scenario that I find personally attractive is that God started the universe in the big bang, and 'created' the laws of physics in such a way that it made our existence possible. I wouldn't say that God planned it to unfold exactly as it has, only that something somehow like what has happened was foreseen.

The biggest strength for evolution by natural selection and related mechanisms in my mind is that it is a really somewhat simple idea in its basics and yet it explains so much and is supported by so much evidence.

Quote:
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?

I agree very much here. We should fully accept both types of revelation. The findings of science should force us to look at spiritual meaning in early Genesis, to study the Hebrew original more closely, and I think we may see hidden treasures by that means.

. . . and I would also agree. The central message of the Bible is spiritual anyway. Besides, although our YEC friends might think I am crazy, I find science, including evolution, the big bang, the incredible age and extent of the universe, etc., incredibly inspiring and more amenable to my idea of an awesome and unfathomable God than a universe created all at once in the last 10,000 years.

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 do you mean by bizaare ways? I think evolution is true because the scientific evidence seems so overwhelming, while the YEC model of creation seems entirely inconsistent with that evidence.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:38 am

perplexed wrote: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

Hmm. Based on what I found in responding to your original info on this 'chinese hebrew' link (after your long post on page 4 of this thread), I don't see how you can say it is a 'fact' that such a link exists, even in the most tenuous way. The work of Nelson and Kang is highly speculative at best.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:41 am

יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

לילה ליל ליל
layil lêyl layelâh
lah'-yil, lale, lah'-yel-aw
From the same as H3883; properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night; figuratively adversity: - ([mid-]) night (season).

לוּל
lûl
lool
From an unused root meaning to fold back; a spiral step: - winding stair. Compare H3924

ללאה
lûlâ'âh
loo-law-aw'
From the same as H3883; a loop: - loop.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:50 am

Thanks for the definitions, perplexed. But, they still don't answer the question. Even if Genesis does refer to 6 days of 24 hours it doesn't mean it's literally true, any more than the talking snake means that snakes currently talk. I think that the critical issue is why people want to consider the overall story to be historically accurate, and why they are so afraid of evolution and geology. There's a thread in which we've tried to get some sort of discussion going on this, What if evolution really istrue? Suppose the bible really is not intended to be science, and evolution really, truly, is correct? Would it make any difference at all? Who cares if the bible is inerrant--it's stories. They are instructive stories, but stories nonethelss.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:31 am

יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

לילה ליל ליל
layil lêyl layelâh
lah'-yil, lale, lah'-yel-aw
From the same as H3883; properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night; figuratively adversity: - ([mid-]) night (season).

לוּל
lûl
lool
From an unused root meaning to fold back; a spiral step: - winding stair. Compare H3924

ללאה
lûlâ'âh
loo-law-aw'
From the same as H3883; a loop: - loop.

I appreciate your researching this, but the form this is in is a bit cryptic. Do you have a reference where this is explained further?

In addition, the point I was making is that there are theological experts that cannot agree that yom in Genesis means 24 hours. I am not a theological expert (and know no Hebrew) and so do not want to get into a technical discussion best left for the experts.

Would the information you have be sufficient to persuade the Presbyterians to come to agreement that yom must be 24 hours?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am

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

While you might be able to get some philosophical meaning out of the story, in a thread on Biblical inerrancy, that's pretty irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the creation story in the Bible never happened, nor did the flood, nor did a lot of other things claimed in the Bible. The Bible is not, therefore, inerrant, it contains clear and obvious contradictions, errors and falsehoods.

Nothing says we can't learn something from the falsehoods though.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:53 pm

Cephus wrote:
Tilia wrote:I agree; that does not mean that the story is without meaning, though.
While you might be able to get some philosophical meaning out of the story, in a thread on Biblical inerrancy, that's pretty irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the creation story in the Bible never happened, nor did the flood, nor did a lot of other things claimed in the Bible. The Bible is not, therefore, inerrant, it contains clear and obvious contradictions, errors and falsehoods.

Nothing says we can't learn something from the falsehoods though.

Hmmm.....What you say will have meaning to some of our members, but not to others. There are a great many who accept it as true, and believe that it all really happened. Asserting that it did not is, to them, equivalent to their asserting to you that it did.

I think there are two ways to argue this, if you want to make headway with your argument. The first is to provide evidence that the bible cannot be inerrant, based upon explicit details of the text itself. This is the "self-contradiction" argument. The second is to provide evidence that what the bible says is not recorded in the physical record of what actually occurred--the earth itself. This might be called the "factual-contradiction" argument. It sounds like you lean toward the second approach. Can you provide some of the evidence that supports your view?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:46 pm

Jose wrote:Hmmm.....What you say will have meaning to some of our members, but not to others. There are a great many who accept it as true, and believe that it all really happened. Asserting that it did not is, to them, equivalent to their asserting to you that it did.

Meaning doesn't really matter IMO. Whether you accept it as true or not doesn't change whether it is, in fact, true or false. That exists beyond the acceptance of it. There was a time when most people accepted that the Earth was flat. They were wrong. Unfortunately, far too many people have gotten the ridiculous idea into their heads that if they believe something strongly enough, it suddenly becomes true.

It just ain't so.

I think there are two ways to argue this, if you want to make headway with your argument. The first is to provide evidence that the bible cannot be inerrant, based upon explicit details of the text itself. This is the "self-contradiction" argument.

That's been done many times and in many places, it's really not worth doing again. Besides, it doesn't convince any of the 'true believers' who simply cannot conceive of the fact that the Bible might be wrong. To even admit that the remote possibility of Biblical error exists destroys their entire worldview, but they aren't living in reality, they're living in a self-generated fantasy world where everything they believe is true and anything that disagrees with them is false.

The second is to provide evidence that what the bible says is not recorded in the physical record of what actually occurred--the earth itself. This might be called the "factual-contradiction" argument. It sounds like you lean toward the second approach. Can you provide some of the evidence that supports your view?

That's also been done many times, with the same results as above. For most of these people, if the Bible said the sky was purple polka-dotted, they'd demand that it must be so, not because it really was, but because the Bible said so. "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" accurately describes the thought processes of these individuals, who are outrightly irrational.

They're not worth debating because they cannot produce anything beyond "I'm right, so there."