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** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:16 pm

micatala wrote:I would be interested in your response to the Copernicus and Darwin thread.

I bring it up here, since it is my contention that those who insist that Genesis 1 is inerrant in the literal sense are ignoring the history of the Copernican controversy.

What do you think?

i guess the chinese must be wrong too then and they are supposedly one of the oldest preserved cultures in history. roughly 5000 yrs and their account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:57 pm

perplexed 101 wrote:i guess the chinese must be wrong too then and they are supposedly one of the oldest preserved cultures in history. roughly 5000 yrs and their account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew.

Are you talking about some other planet? I don't recall any mention of YHWH hatching the universe from an egg...

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:00 am

Lotan wrote:
perplexed 101 wrote:i guess the chinese must be wrong too then and they are supposedly one of the oldest preserved cultures in history. roughly 5000 yrs and their account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew.
Are you talking about some other planet? I don't recall any mention of YHWH hatching the universe from an egg...

im not speaking towards an explanation that came after a frame a reference to depict what is seen or taken in account and then formalized to form vocal speech; when written depicts events based upon that frame of reference.

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:02 am

i guess the chinese must be wrong too then and they are supposedly one of the oldest preserved cultures in history. roughly 5000 yrs and their account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew.

Evidence?

Because from what I've read, the Chinese didn't manage to mention anything you find in the bible other then the existance of cities. No sun standing still. No global flood. Nothing. And these people were good record keepers, they measured the dustfall in the courtyards in records so good we're looking back at them to determine past climates.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:05 am

Nyril wrote:
i guess the chinese must be wrong too then and they are supposedly one of the oldest preserved cultures in history. roughly 5000 yrs and their account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew.
Evidence?

Because from what I've read, the Chinese didn't manage to mention anything you find in the bible other then the existance of cities. No sun standing still. No global flood. Nothing. And these people were good record keepers, they measured the dustfall in the courtyards in records so good we're looking back at them to determine past climates.

lol, you arent telling me anything new. What has been discovered is a comparison between hebrew and chinese monotheistic beliefs within the same time frame till changes to their rationale started to diverge away.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:07 am

perplexed101 wrote:im not speaking towards an explanation that came after a frame a reference to depict what is seen or taken in account and then formalized to form vocal speech.

???????????????????????????

I might have an easier time understanding you if you put that in Chinese!
Can you please explain in what way you think the Chinese "account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew"?

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:09 am

Lotan wrote:
perplexed101 wrote:im not speaking towards an explanation that came after a frame a reference to depict what is seen or taken in account and then formalized to form vocal speech.
???????????????????????????
I might have an easier time understanding you if you put that in Chinese!
Can you please explain in what way you think the Chinese "account of genesis matches quite accurately in comparison with hebrew"?

im gonna state this for your benefit:

look at the prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism. You will find a link towards the information you seek. If you plan on barging in like an expert then it would help if you pay attention to the prior information presented. If you dispute the evidence presented then state so and it will be dully noted.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:21 am

perplexed101 wrote:im gonna state this for your benefit:

look at the prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism. You will find a link towards the information you seek. If you plan on barging in like an expert then it would help if you pay attention to the prior information presented.

I hate to break it to you, but there are NO "prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism" on this thread. No link either. Someone's not paying attention, but I don't think it's me. If you can't answer the question just say so. There's no need to be rude about it.

perplexed101 · Post by **perplexed101** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:33 am

Lotan wrote:
perplexed101 wrote:im gonna state this for your benefit:

look at the prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism. You will find a link towards the information you seek. If you plan on barging in like an expert then it would help if you pay attention to the prior information presented.
I hate to break it to you, but there are NO "prior posts concerning the evidence found incuding the belief of monotheism" on this thread. No link either. Someone's not paying attention, but I don't think it's me. If you can't answer the question just say so. There's no need to be rude about it.

keep searching detective, you'll find it.

phoenixfire · Post by **phoenixfire** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:59 am

micatala wrote:I would be interested in your response to the Copernicus and Darwin thread.

I bring it up here, since it is my contention that those who insist that Genesis 1 is inerrant in the literal sense are ignoring the history of the Copernican controversy.

What do you think?

Good question. Scripture should not be interpreted literally, it should be interpreted plainly. That is, you need to interpret each verse, chapter, and book given the context, the author's purpose, and the genre of the literature. People often make fun of scripture by quoting Pslams and saying how unscientific it is. That's ridiculous because obviously the psalms are poetry.

I don't know where in teh Bible it clearly stats that the world should be the center of the solar system...the verses mentioned in the other post seemed to be from Job, Pslams, etc.

The thing is, (and I think all serious scholars would agree) Genesis
is written as history, not myth or poem. Now I will admit that it is possible for us to misinterpret scripture and we are all susceptible to group think.
But I really don't see how you can honestly interpret Genesis as anything but 6 24 hour days. Whenever the hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal or 'day and night' other places in the Bible it always means a 24 hour day. In Genesis it is meant to be both. Additionally, look at the order God created things. That order clearly does not fit with evolutionary chronology even if the days were millions of years.

Furthermore, evolution poses a serious theological problem. Evolution requires millions of years of suffering and death...and if death existed before man then the whole theological basis of salvation is on shaky ground. It is very clear multiple places in scripture that death is a result of sin. Consider Romans 5

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned...Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that bring life to all men."

Jesus's redemptive act is directly contrasted with the sin of Adam.

Jesus also assumes Genesis is historical in his teaching on other things, like divorce, and the end times..."As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking...and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."

Also, I think it is really easy to believe in evolutoin if that is all you have ever been exposed to. I think people discount the strong affect group think can have. But there are a myriad of major problems with the theory of evolution that are not commonly discussed.