Biblical inerrancy vs infallibility

[cloudyday2]

To determine whether they are justified to not believe Genesis, I need to know why they can't believe it. Do they believe contradictory information instead, or do they rather believe it is impossible?

Most disbelieve due to the contradictory evidence from science. When read literally, he creation story along with the genealogy leads to belief that the Earth is about 6000 years old - or at least that "humanity" is 6000 years old. Of course humans evolved gradually over millions of years, but Homo Sapiens have existed for 100,000 years. Meanwhile the Earth is at least 4 billion years old and the universe is over twice that old. @AmericanChristian91 summarized reasons to doubt the Exodus story in post #35.

Furthrmore, you seem to suggest these people use disbelief of Genesis as the basis for disbelieving Matthew. Do you also think this is a valid reason to disbelieve Matthew? If so, please explain why.

That is the point of this thread. Many ex-Christians seem to have believed in biblical inerrancy from Genesis to Revelation. Discovery of a few obvious errors caused them to abandon Christianity entirely. On the other hand, I've talked to extremely liberal Christians (e.g. Progressive Christians) who cling to the label without any specifically Christian beliefs that I can identify.

...Reasons to disbelieve Matthew? The stories in Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus are questionable. Mark is older, and Mark doesn't include these details. Furthermore the virgin birth seems to be fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah from the LXX that was a poor translation taken out of context. There are reasons to be suspicious but no smoking gun that I'm aware of. (Obviously the non-existent prophecy in Isaiah and the failure to mention the virgin birth in the earliest writings such as Paul and Mark does not mean the virgin birth didn't happen.) I'm just giving an example of a possible error in Matthew. Not everybody sees this as an error.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ BTW, the purpose of this thread is not to highlight and debate possible errors in the Bible. That would probably violate the general apologetics rule of CF.

My question is: are there denominations that have attempted to classify portions of the Bible as fiction vs. fact vs. in-between?

 

[oi_antz]

Most disbelieve due to the contradictory evidence from science. When read literally, he creation story along with the genealogy leads to belief that the Earth is about 6000 years old - or at least that "humanity" is 6000 years old. Of course humans evolved gradually over millions of years, but Homo Sapiens have existed for 100,000 years. Meanwhile the Earth is at least 4 billion years old and the universe is over twice that old. @AmericanChristian91 summarized reasons to doubt the Exodus story in post #35.

I do not agree with the basic idea in post #35 that OT God is man-made and that Jesus is establishing a new view of God. Rather, I view Jesus as the one to whom every knee will bow. His instruction to His disciples was peaceful, as He was acting to bring the fulfillment of the law according to God's plan. God's plan needed to change considerably when it was finally evident that Israel would refuse to achieve it. Don't forget to request scriptural support when I say things like this if you don't already understand them.

Besides, the question was whether it is impossible, and I think you have indirectly acknowledged that literal Genesis is possible, though it seems most unlikely.

That is the point of this thread. Many ex-Christians seem to have believed in biblical inerrancy from Genesis to Revelation. Discovery of a few obvious errors caused them to abandon Christianity entirely. On the other hand, I've talked to extremely liberal Christians (e.g. Progressive Christians) who cling to the label without any specifically Christian beliefs that I can identify.

Those certainly are extremes! What do you reckon is right?

...Reasons to disbelieve Matthew? The stories in Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus are questionable. Mark is older, and Mark doesn't include these details. Furthermore the virgin birth seems to be fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah from the LXX that was a poor translation taken out of context. There are reasons to be suspicious, but no smoking gun that I'm aware of. (Obviously the non-existent prophecy in Isaiah and the failure to mention the virgin birth in the earliest writings such as Paul and Mark does not mean it didn't happen.)

Why would you want to be suspicious?

 

[aiki]

There are things in the Bible that many people can't believe when read literally such as Noah's Ark, the genealogy from Adam to historical times, etc. So they say we should not read the Bible literally.

When people start to pick and choose their way through the Bible, setting aside extraordinary events as impossible myth, and other parts as culturally irrelevant, and still others as just plain unpalatable, they make themselves the Final Arbiter of God's truth and gut Scripture of its trustworthiness and divine authority.

I just don't understand why people who claim a belief in God, in a supernatural Creator, would balk at Him working supernaturally in His dealings with His Creation. Why wouldn't we expect to find God doing extraordinary, miraculous things all through the record of Scripture? While the Great Flood, or parting the Red Sea, or the resurrection of Christ seem incredible to us, these are not particularly remarkable feats to the One who made and continues to sustain the entire universe! It's only when we impose our human limits on God and His Word that the recorded events of the Bible seem impossible.

Selah.

 

[cloudyday2]

Those certainly are extremes! What do you reckon is right?

It's hard to know the true history of Judaism and Christianity, and it's hard to describe any hypothesis in a few sentences. If we study the text of any book of the Bible (Genesis, Matthew,...), we can learn things about the theologies at the times that different revisions happened. Sometimes books are preserved in alternate forms in other religions. It's a hard problem.

Why would you want to be suspicious?

Always good to be skeptical in this world.

 

[cloudyday2]

When people start to pick and choose their way through the Bible, setting aside extraordinary events as impossible myth, and other parts as culturally irrelevant, and still others as just plain unpalatable, they make themselves the Final Arbiter of God's truth and gut Scripture of its trustworthiness and divine authority.

I just don't understand why people who claim a belief in God, in a supernatural Creator, would balk at Him working supernaturally in His dealings with His Creation. Why wouldn't we expect to find God doing extraordinary, miraculous things all through the record of Scripture? While the Great Flood, or parting the Red Sea, or the resurrection of Christ seem incredible to us, these are not particularly remarkable feats to the One who made and continues to sustain the entire universe! It's only when we impose our human limits on God and His Word that the recorded events of the Bible seem impossible.

Selah.

The problem with the Great Flood is that we should see some evidence geologically. For the Great Flood to work, God must take the extra step of hiding all evidence of the miracle and planting evidence that the miracle didn't happen.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @aiki , I don't want to run afoul of the general apologetics rule by debating things like Noah's flood.

I agree with most of your points, and that was an interesting article you linked in the earlier post. The article contained a list at the end that was interesting (beliefs that some Christians disagree about).

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I do not agree with the basic idea in post #35 that OT God is man-made and that Jesus is establishing a new view of God.

I don't think that is a good statement of what I was trying to say. I acknowledged their is truth about God (including when it comes to theology) in the OT. I even mentioned the OT should not be thrown out. But one has to understand we are seeing God through the lens of another world long past. I just think some of the "actions" done by God in the OT were not actually done by him (since it goes against his character better revealed in the NT) but instead put into the bible because of the context of the time/culture of the writers. It shows the humanity of the bible when there are passages in the bible that say "God" ordered his followers to genocide. But that is not saying there are two different God's. Different views, influenced by different times/culture/imperfect people, of the same God. I do believe that the same God who helped out Israel in their troubled times, is the same one who created the world, and sent his only son to earth. I firmly believe it is best to read the OT in light of the NT. Ask yourself, what would Jesus do, when you read passages in the OT that attribute horrible actions to God.

 

[aiki]

The problem with the Great Flood is that we should see some evidence geologically. For the Great Flood to work, God must take the extra step of hiding all evidence of the miracle and planting evidence that the miracle didn't happen.

Well, not to flout the forum rules concerning apologetic discussions, but I don't see that the evidence for the Great Flood is as you say. When I do a quick Google search I easily find all sorts of articles - and not all coming from a Christian source - that cast significant doubt on geologic uniformitarianism and make the idea of a Great Flood highly plausible. It seems in this instance one's presuppositions play a powerful role in how one looks at the geologic data.

Selah.

 

[oi_antz]

It's hard to know the true history of Judaism and Christianity, and it's hard to describe any hypothesis in a few sentences. If we study the text of any book of the Bible (Genesis, Matthew,...), we can learn things about the theologies at the times that different revisions happened. Sometimes books are preserved in alternate forms in other religions. It's a hard problem.

I would like to ask for information for every one of these statements. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing a Google search on my behalf and copy/pasting the URL for me, so I can get more of the information you have described, as I seem to not have the same knowledge. I think that would be helpful.

Always good to be skeptical in this world.

I don't agree with this. To that extent, it prevents decisiveness and acceptance of truth. I am wondering about your motivation. From this, it seems you are somehow gratified by being skeptical of the bible. Can you describe that a bit to me?

 

[oi_antz]

I don't think that is a good statement of what I was trying to say. I acknowledged their is truth about God (including when it comes to theology) in the OT. I even mentioned the OT should not be thrown out. But one has to understand we are seeing God through the lens of another world long past. I just think some of the "actions" done by God in the OT were not actually done by him (since it goes against his character better revealed in the NT) but instead put into the bible because of the context of the time/culture of the writers. It shows the humanity of the bible when there are passages in the bible that say "God" ordered his followers to genocide. But that is not saying there are two different God's. Different views, influenced by different times/culture/imperfect people, of the same God. I do believe that the same God who helped out Israel in their troubled times, is the same one who created the world, and sent his only son to earth. I firmly believe it is best to read the OT in light of the NT. Ask yourself, what would Jesus do, when you read passages in the OT that attribute horrible actions to God.

I believe He would do the will of God obediently and without dispute. I believe this perfect obedience is why all judgement has been given to Him. I see that the objection you make is emotional. You are drawn to God's love and you do not like a characterisation that demonstrates Him in another way. But I want to say that I think it is a mistake to agree that God's actions in the OT were horrible. Rather we know what He wants and whatever He wants to rid is actually horrible.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, not to flout the forum rules concerning apologetic discussions, but I don't see that the evidence for the Great Flood is as you say. When I do a quick Google search I easily find all sorts of articles - and not all coming from a Christian source - that cast significant doubt on geologic uniformitarianism and make the idea of a Great Flood highly plausible. It seems in this instance one's presuppositions play a powerful role in how one looks at the geologic data.

Selah.

When I research these types of questions, I look at the number of sources on each side and the apparent professionalism of the sources. I'm not an expert, so I can't evaluate the opposing evidence myself; I can only evaluate the experts. As far as I know the majority of experts (geologists, etc.) do not believe there was a Great Flood. Of course there were regional floods created when natural dams were breached and so forth (such as when water from the Mediterranean rapidly filled the Black Sea).

 

[cloudyday2]

I would like to ask for information for every one of these statements. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing a Google search on my behalf and copy/pasting the URL for me, so I can get more of the information you have described, as I seem to not have the same knowledge. I think that would be helpful.

Sorry, I don't have the energy to do that. If you are more comfortable believing that I have no sources for my beliefs, then that's fine.

I don't agree with this. To that extent, it prevents decisiveness and acceptance of truth. I am wondering about your motivation. From this, it seems you are somehow gratified by being skeptical of the bible. Can you describe that a bit to me?

Whatever you want to think is fine.

 

[oi_antz]

Sorry, I don't have the energy to do that. If you are more comfortable believing that I have no sources for my beliefs, then that's fine.

It wasn't for that purpose. I asked for a Google search, because I would not know where to start. Surely it would require less energy than the reply in #45. What makes you refuse to give water to the thirsty?

Whatever you want to think is fine.

I would never say this. It opposes the truth.

 

[aiki]

When I research these types of questions, I look at the number of sources on each side and the apparent professionalism of the sources. I'm not an expert, so I can't evaluate the opposing evidence myself; I can only evaluate the experts. As far as I know the majority of experts (geologists, etc.) do not believe there was a Great Flood. Of course there were regional floods created when natural dams were breached and so forth (such as when water from the Mediterranean rapidly filled the Black Sea).

This makes you rather susceptible to the biases of the experts. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that science is not done in an utterly neutral way. Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" documentary illustrated very clearly the acute bias scientists face in doing research that challenges entrenched theories. I would urge you not to adopt an interpretation of the facts merely because it is held by the majority. History shows us how bad an idea that can be.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

My question is: are there denominations that have attempted to classify portions of the Bible as fiction vs. fact vs. in-between?

Well, I don't know that such a thing has been attempted by a denomination per se. But certainly this has and is being done by liberal Christians, which you find mainly in a set few denominations (United Church, Anglican, some strains of Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and increasingly Roman Catholics).

Personally, I find these attempts to place man above God enormously distasteful and ill-advised.

Selah.

 

[chilehed]

Well you need to take that up with Wikipedia - not me I was just using the definition in Wikipedia, and by that definition the Catholic church claims infallibility - not inerrancy.

As I said, according to the Catholic understanding, inerrancy is an attribute of Sacred Scripture and infallibility is not.

So what about my question though? Do you think sections of the Bible should be classified as either inerrant or infallible instead of trying to classify the entire collection?

The Bible is that collection of books that are held to teach solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation: that's the definition of inerrant. If some possible idea of what the texts mean does not accord with reality (say, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth), then that cannot be the truth which God wished to put into them. He is Truth itself, and cannot be wrong in what he says is true.

By definition, each individual book is understood to be inerrant, therefore every possible group of them is also inerrant.

 

[cloudyday2]

As I said, according to the Catholic understanding, inerrancy is an attribute of Sacred Scripture and infallibility is not.

The Bible is that collection of books that are held to teach solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation: that's the definition of inerrant. If some possible idea of what the texts mean does not accord with reality (say, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth), then that cannot be the truth which God wished to put into them. He is Truth itself, and cannot be wrong in what he says is true.

By definition, each individual book is understood to be inerrant, therefore every possible group of them is also inerrant.

So any errors in the Bible are simply the fault of the reader for not being able to see the truth hidden beneath the apparent error? If there is "truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" wouldn't it be more sensible for Him to simply make the truth obvious rather than hiding the truth beneath words that seem to be errors?

 

[cloudyday2]

This makes you rather susceptible to the biases of the experts. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that science is not done in an utterly neutral way. Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" documentary illustrated very clearly the acute bias scientists face in doing research that challenges entrenched theories. I would urge you not to adopt an interpretation of the facts merely because it is held by the majority. History shows us how bad an idea that can be.

Selah.

I want to be susceptible to the biases of the experts! Seriously, if some expert has evidence for a fringe theory that is true, eventually that theory will be supported by the majority of experts. As a non-expert, there is no way for me to know which fringe theory will someday become the majority theory, so I should trust the majority of experts. The riskiest thing I could do is to attempt to evaluate the evidence myself without a high-level of expertise in the field. Often the correct evaluation of evidence is not at all obvious to a novice. It would be even more foolish for me to choose to believe fringe theories that agree with my personal biases.

Whenever I run into a theory that is too good to be true, I google some keywords along with "skeptic", "debunked", etc.

 

[aiki]

Seriously, if some expert has evidence for a fringe theory that is true, eventually that theory will be supported by the majority of experts.

I'm not so sure. Especially when there is a philosophical dimension to the bias against new or marginalized data, suppression rather than support is what the response from majority of experts will be. That's what Ben Stein's documentary demonstrated. Secular scientists, who by and large are naturalists/materialists, have a strong philosophical motive to deride and dismiss anything in science that might weaken the ground for their naturalism/materialism. Certainly, anything that would indicate that there is a supernatural agency at work in the universe simply cannot be allowed to gain traction - particularly when there has been such vocal and sweeping dismissal and denigration of such a possibility by naturalist/materialist scientists.

As a non-expert, there is no way for me to know which fringe theory will someday become the majority theory, so I should trust the majority of experts.

No way? Really? I think you're overstating yourself here a bit. Being a non-expert does not entirely disqualify you from assessing the claims experts make. Especially when experts are interpreting the data of science, which they always inevitably do, their conclusions often become philosophical not scientific. And when this is so, you don't have to be an expert scientist to take note and object if necessary. Dawkins is a prime example of a scientist telling us what to think philosophically. As he aptly demonstrates, being a scientist does not make you a good philosopher. But he is not unique in his attempts to pass off a philosophy as a fact of science. This is generally what most scientists do to one degree or another. And when they do, it isn't necessary to be an expert in their scientific field to assess the validity of their philosophical interpretation of the data.

It would be even more foolish for me to choose to believe fringe theories that agree with my personal biases.

Is this not what you are already doing - just not with fringe theories? Does acting the way you describe in your post not accord with your personal biases? It seems so to me...

Selah.