For creationists: How would you know?

[Mallon]

Usually when one contradicts something it is dismissed.

I'm surprised to hear this from a reformed Christian, such as yourself. As Luther demonstrated nearly 500 years ago, Copernicus' findings clearly contradict a plain reading of the Scriptures.
What haven't you abandoned your Bible yet?

 

[vossler]

First is the problem of the attributes of God being used to argue for the perfection of Scripture.

I don't think applying the attributes of God to something He creates as being inappropriate.

Nowhere does the Scripture claim for itself perfection, but rather it makes the claim of goodness and usefulness and trustworthiness based on these communicable attributes of God. We can understand good, and suitable, and trustworthy without claiming perfection.

Again, given that it came from God we can and should believe Scripture to be inerrant.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 states:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.​

In other words if God said it, it is without fault, it is 100% accurate and trustworthy. If part of it were in error it certainly wouldn't be good for teaching, reproof, correction or training in righteousness.


2 Timothy 2:15 states:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.​

How can one rightly handle the word of truth when not all of it is true?

but i do see the logic that if you base the authority of Scripture on it being perfection itself that any challenge to that attribute would bring the authority down as well as demonstrate that it is not perfect.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Which appears to me to make the argument very brittle and unyielding to the problems of sin effecting not just the transmission but the translation and interpretation of Scripture. You are not handling the perfect Scripture when you pick up an English Bible so however can it be perfect and authoritative?

The argument isn't brittle but it is unyielding. I have yet to see a respected translation state something entirely different that another respected translation. Is there some variance, of course, but nothing that would subject the message as being inaccurate.

 

[shernren]

I don't think applying the attributes of God to something He creates as being inappropriate.
Again, given that it came from God we can and should believe Scripture to be inerrant.

Well, God created me, didn't He? So am I perfect and infallible?

This is not just a frivolous question. The extent to which God can "communicate" His attributes to me is only so much as the extent to which I can become a revelation of Him. The Bible is a sufficient but not exhaustive revelation of God, it never claims to be identified with God. Jesus says of Himself that "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father", does the Bible say that of itself? Instead it points to Jesus through the Old and New Testaments and says that whoever has seen that Man has seen God Himself. It makes little claim about itself along the way, except ...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 states:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.​

In other words if God said it, it is without fault, it is 100% accurate and trustworthy. If part of it were in error it certainly wouldn't be good for teaching, reproof, correction or training in righteousness.

Funny that you should read something foreign into the text. Was Paul talking about the perfection of the Bible, or was he talking of its utility? The Bible can certainly be useful even if it was merely confined to the science of its era and unable to express things in terms of the science of today. Genesis 1 is certainly profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, even if we do not believe that it is a factual description (of a real event, mind you) or that it is meant to form any historical framework for any sort of scientific investigation (as AiG's statement of faith claims).

2 Timothy 2:15 states:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.​

How can one rightly handle the word of truth when not all of it is true?

But it is true, just not all in a literal or scientific sense.

anyhow, i am still confused. i don't see the claim in Scripture that it shares the perfections of God, nor do i see that the perfections are what makes it authoritative. but i do see the logic that if you base the authority of Scripture on it being perfection itself that any challenge to that attribute would bring the authority down as well as demonstrate that it is not perfect. Which appears to me to make the argument very brittle and unyielding to the problems of sin effecting not just the transmission but the translation and interpretation of Scripture. You are not handling the perfect Scripture when you pick up an English Bible so however can it be perfect and authoritative?

this appears to be more like the Islamic defense of the Quran as a heavenly eternal book in Arabic just brought to earth by Mohammed rather than the traditional doctrine of inspiration.

Indeed, this is what the whole issue always looks like to me too. It looks like the YEC "Biblical inerrantists" see the Bible as a monolithic, uncreated entity coequal with God in terms of perfection, handed down to Moses (or whoever) on a golden platter, don't ask anything more. It's a comfortable view. A book will not argue with you, or paint grey areas, or force you to think outside the culture it represented, or tell you that you are wrong about anything it doesn't say. So it is easy to know God when God is essentially contained in a book.

For "communicating" God's incommunicable attribute of perfection to a collection of text is just that: saying that God is essentially contained to the text. It essentially descends to claiming of the Bible as Jesus claimed for Himself "Whoever has read this has known the Father." It is far harder to grapple with the idea that the Bible may instead be essentially a human response to a divine God, and that God's ultimate revelation is a Person and not a book. It humbles us and leaves us the responsibility of charting our (God-guided) way through new moral grounds, of having to find a genuinely Christ-like response to the new issues of things like abortion and the ethics of human embryos, instead of blindly quoting a verse from the Bible and resting in the assurance that "whenever I quote the Bible I quote God."

It feels more like this than like a Christian understanding of the Bible:

In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:
"The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High." Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).
​

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/uncrq_e.html

 

[Mallon]

Again, given that it came from God we can and should believe Scripture to be inerrant.



2 Timothy 3:16-17 states:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.​

In other words if God said it, it is without fault, it is 100% accurate and trustworthy. If part of it were in error it certainly wouldn't be good for teaching, reproof, correction or training in righteousness.

This thought has only just struck me now.
Given that the Bible was not assembled when 2 Timothy was written, "All Scripture" must include even those apocryphal books not included in the 'final cut.' Do you feel that makes the apocrypha infallible, too? Why?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This thought has only just struck me now.
Given that the Bible was not assembled when 2 Timothy was written, "All Scripture" must include even those apocryphal books not included in the 'final cut.' Do you feel that makes the apocrypha infallible, too? Why?

Paul is almost certainly speaking about the Septuagint to Timothy. Most (more than half) the quotations from the OT in the NT are from it.
see:
http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_We...rpretation/Chapter_5--OT_Quotations_in_NT.pdf

The Sources of Quotations
It is generally accepted that the sources from which the NT writers took their quotations
are the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. For a while, scholars insisted that the Septuagint was the
only source for quotations and they would go through great textual gymnastics to show that
every New Testament quotation followed the Septuagint textual tradition.
On the other hand, some thought that elevating the Septuagint to such status was
disparaging to the Hebrew text. So, they insisted that the New Testament writers had taken
every quotation from the Hebrew text, even when the quote matched the Septuagint word for
word.
Calmer and more objective minds have concluded that the great majority of the
quotations of the Old Testament is from the Septuagint rather then from the Hebrew text. For
example, the Septuagint text of Mal 3:1 is an accurate translation of the Masoretic text of the
same passage. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree literally in a rendering that is noticeable
different from the Masoretic and Septuagint texts.

 

[Assyrian]

The two problems I see with the idea of inerrancy are:

(1) It is not a biblical term. It strikes me as odd to see the phrase 'inspired and inerrant' mixing biblical and non biblical descriptions. If the bible is inerrant, then why not stick to the biblical description of inspired?

(2) Inerrancy bring with it the whole baggage of defining what sort of book the bible is. It becomes a textbook, a divine encyclopedia full of fact, an ultra reliable data base.

Whereas the biblical description inspired describes God's living and active word, God communicating to the world. Paul gave a brief description that illustrates the difference between inerrant and inspired 2Cor 3:6 For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

But I think the whole mountain of inerrancy is cast into the sea by a single mustard seed. If the bible is 'inerrant' then Jesus had to be factually correct describing the mustard seed as Mar 4:31 the smallest of all the seeds on earth. But it isn't. Nor did Jesus intend to give an inerrant botanical description of the mustard seed. The passage is a true description of faith. To try an define it as inerrant is to completely miss the point.

 

[vossler]

This is not just a frivolous question. The extent to which God can "communicate" His attributes to me is only so much as the extent to which I can become a revelation of Him.

Given that this communication comes primarily from His Word I think it is important that His Word be the Truth; fortunately for us it is.

The Bible is a sufficient but not exhaustive revelation of God, it never claims to be identified with God. Jesus says of Himself that "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father", does the Bible say that of itself?

Seeing how the Bible is a book, a holy book at that, it can never be compared with the one true living God, so of course it won't say something of itself that is illogical like that. No one has ever claimed the Bible to be an exhaustive revelation of God and whenever you throw that non sequitur out there it is just a disingenuous portrayal of the argument. You've done this before and I truly wish you would refrain from continually doing that.

Funny that you should read something foreign into the text. Was Paul talking about the perfection of the Bible, or was he talking of its utility? The Bible can certainly be useful even if it was merely confined to the science of its era and unable to express things in terms of the science of today. Genesis 1 is certainly profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, even if we do not believe that it is a factual description (of a real event, mind you) or that it is meant to form any historical framework for any sort of scientific investigation (as AiG's statement of faith claims).

I have a reverence and awe for Scripture and hold the Words within it as Words directly spoken to me from God. So if God tells me something, anything, I will believe it without questioning the validity even for a moment. Does that mean I understand everything perfectly, obviously not, yet I never question the errancy of anything written within it. So, I believe the Bible to be perfect in everything it says and that includes the utility it possesses to answer completely, to the degree required, all subjects to which it refers.

I personally can't comprehend ever reading the Bible, the very Word of God, as factually incorrect. That is an utterly oxymoronic thought.

But it is true, just not all in a literal or scientific sense.

I guess this is the door which allows for our own personal interpretations which are so prevalent here.

Indeed, this is what the whole issue always looks like to me too. It looks like the YEC "Biblical inerrantists" see the Bible as a monolithic, uncreated entity coequal with God in terms of perfection, handed down to Moses (or whoever) on a golden platter, don't ask anything more. It's a comfortable view. A book will not argue with you, or paint grey areas, or force you to think outside the culture it represented, or tell you that you are wrong about anything it doesn't say. So it is easy to know God when God is essentially contained in a book.

Reading this just reinforces my view that TEs can't see the perspective of a YEC. The thought that the Bible is comfortable, doesn't argue with you, have grey areas, etc., is as far from the truth as anything I've ever heard a TE say. Truly we are far, far apart. That's too bad!

 

[vossler]

This thought has only just struck me now.
Given that the Bible was not assembled when 2 Timothy was written, "All Scripture" must include even those apocryphal books not included in the 'final cut.' Do you feel that makes the apocrypha infallible, too? Why?

The apocryphal books didn't make the cut because God chose that they didn't.

 

[vossler]

But I think the whole mountain of inerrancy is cast into the sea by a single mustard seed. If the bible is 'inerrant' then Jesus had to be factually correct describing the mustard seed as Mar 4:31 the smallest of all the seeds on earth. But it isn't.

It was the smallest seed that was sown. The entire text says: "is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth..."

The Bible is still factually correct.

 

[Mallon]

The apocryphal books didn't make the cut because God chose that they didn't.

How do you know? Is that in the Bible?

You obviously missed my point (and shernren's and Assyrian's, I'm sorry to say). We're asking you to support your claim that the Bible is factually inerrant in the face of strong contradicting evidence. Instead you seem to be pushing an argumentum ad nauseam, where you just repeatedly insist that the Bible is perfect because it was inspired by God. We've dealt with that point; we're past it. We await an informed reply.

P.S. Poppy seeds are sown, too. And they're smaller than mustard seeds.

 

[Deamiter]

...yet I never question the errancy of anything written within [the Bible].

We ask you again and again WHY you never question the errancy of anything written within the Bible. Again and again, you say, "because the Bible is inerrant!" Can you not see the circular reasoning?

ONCE (just once) you cited a verse: 2 Tim 3:16-17. You never explained how this would address the New Testement (as it was clearly written before the New Testement was compiled). You never explained why exactly Genesis 1 would be made useless for teaching if it were allegorical like the parables Jesus taught with extensively. You never justified your interpretation of "God breathed" as "dictated" rather than "inspired" as found in many translations.

In short, you have offered one SINGLE verse in support of Biblical inerrancy, and ignored any criticsm of your interpretation of that single verse. Is your refusal to CONSIDER the possibility of errors introduced by the human authors in the recounting of their inspired spiritual truths honestly based on this single verse, taken out of context and poorly translated?

 

[theFijian]

It was the smallest seed that was sown. The entire text says: "is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth..."

The Bible is still factually correct.

lol actually when you read the version you quoted it becomes clear that the mustard seed is the smallest seed conditional on it being planted in the ground. See what happens when you try to interpret parables literally?

 

[shernren]

Seeing how the Bible is a book, a holy book at that, it can never be compared with the one true living God, so of course it won't say something of itself that is illogical like that. No one has ever claimed the Bible to be an exhaustive revelation of God and whenever you throw that non sequitur out there it is just a disingenuous portrayal of the argument. You've done this before and I truly wish you would refrain from continually doing that.

points down ->

I have a reverence and awe for Scripture and hold the Words within it as Words directly spoken to me from God. So if God tells me something, anything, I will believe it without questioning the validity even for a moment. Does that mean I understand everything perfectly, obviously not, yet I never question the errancy of anything written within it. So, I believe the Bible to be perfect in everything it says and that includes the utility it possesses to answer completely, to the degree required, all subjects to which it refers.

I personally can't comprehend ever reading the Bible, the very Word of God, as factually incorrect. That is an utterly oxymoronic thought.

(emphasis added)

On a tangent, I am not sure that this is a healthy mode of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics has to involve an understanding of the author's purpose, intended readership, and context. But I digress.

The fact is that I would not see any good reason to say that the Bible is factually inerrant unless I viewed it as the exhaustive revelation (or a complete representation) of God, in which case its errancy would be equivalent to an errancy of God's. For I do not see why factual inerrancy is a necessary feature of a book intending to tell us about God and His salvation, or about God's revealing Himself in the form of a man. I don't see how any factual errancy in the Bible would reflect that God makes mistakes. That His writers make mistakes, maybe, and what more mistakes easily explained by the fact that there was no conceivable way they could have avoided those mistakes. But God being mistaken? I suppose the only "mistake" God made was to expect His slim revealed volume of 66 books to say the exact same thing to each and every single believer at every point on the planet at any time in history! I do not see how Christ's Gospel can be sullied in any way simply because Moses was not told that the mountains are millions of years old.

(And BTW, a commentary I have thinks that 2 Timothy 3:16 is rather badly translated, and I think I agree.

2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original πασα γραφη θεοκνευστος ωφιλιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. (Clarke)

But this doesn't change the meaning of the text much from either what I or you think of it. Consult context to see why.)

Reading this just reinforces my view that TEs can't see the perspective of a YEC. The thought that the Bible is comfortable, doesn't argue with you, have grey areas, etc., is as far from the truth as anything I've ever heard a TE say. Truly we are far, far apart. That's too bad!

What I said was: A book will not argue with you, or paint grey areas, or force you to think outside the culture it represented, or tell you that you are wrong about anything it doesn't say. So it is easy to know God when God is essentially contained in a book.

Harsh perhaps but I think it is essentially true. Points down ->

I guess this is the door which allows for our own personal interpretations which are so prevalent here.

Why are you so uncomfortable when our personal interpretations disagree? For two people coming from different directions and backgrounds to read one text and find two different conclusions is hardly unexpected.

 

[theFijian]

I guess this is the door which allows for our own personal interpretations which are so prevalent here.

So what is the alternative of personal interpretation? The Roman Catholic system? You constantly evade this issue, have some integrity and answer the question up front.

 

[vossler]

How do you know? Is that in the Bible?

Given that question it isn't any wonder where you and others stand on the Sovereignty of God.

You obviously missed my point (and shernren's and Assyrian's, I'm sorry to say).

That seems to happen a lot to me here. I'm happy that you're patient with me.

We're asking you to support your claim that the Bible is factually inerrant in the face of strong contradicting evidence.

Well, first of all I will have dispute this statement. There is no strong contradicting evidence that the Bible isn't factually inerrant, nothing.

(Instead you seem to be pushing an argumentum ad nauseam, where you just repeatedly insist that the Bible is perfect because it was inspired by God. We've dealt with that point; we're past it. We await an informed reply.

I hate to disappoint you but I will continue to repeatedly insist that the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God. Given that you are past the point of considering that it isn't inerrant I guess we're at a point where this discussion will be fruitless. If you're looking for a more informed reply than Scripture itself, well I'm sorry but I will again have to disappoint you.

P.S. Poppy seeds weren't sown by the 1st century Israelite.

 

[Assyrian]

It was the smallest seed that was sown. The entire text says: "is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth..."

The Bible is still factually correct.

It doesn't say 'the smallest of all the seeds that are sown'. Jesus describes what happens when a mustard seed is sown. It is the smallest of all the seeds on earth but grows into the largest garden plant. He is not saying it is the smallest cultivated seed, but the smallest of all the seeds on earth.

Even if your reinterpretation were correct, it is still not factually accurate. Poppies had been cultivated around the Mediterranean for thousand of years as both food and medicine. The poppy is mentioned in the Mishna and appears on Jewish coins from the second century BC. And poppy seeds are smaller than mustard seeds.

But Jesus was not giving the the disciples an inerrant description of first century horticulture, he was teaching them about faith and the mustard seed was a wonderful illustration to teach them this lesson. Anyone sitting down taking notes for Botany 101 was in the wrong classroom.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I hate to disappoint you but I will continue to repeatedly insist that the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God.


the problem is that this is not what you are claiming.
you are claiming that the action-theopneumos, God-breathed transfers the attribute of perfection into the Bible.
1. this is the only verse you have offered to show that the Bible is perfect
2. it is a metaphor, analogous to God breathed into Adam ruach of life.
3. yet we know that Adam was not perfect but rather good-suitable-sufficient-complete-mature
4. even then, your desire to make the authority of Scripture rest on the attribute of perfection is not the traditional argument, but rather the reverse of it. The traditional argument is that God inspired Scripture, therefore it is authoritative, if it is to be authoritative then it must be trustworthy and that trust in all requires trust in each, therefore the bible is inerrant. Essentially somewhere in the last 100 years part of the church has flipped the argument upside down, basing the authority on it being without error because it is like God-perfect.

 

[Mallon]

Given that question it isn't any wonder where you and others stand on the Sovereignty of God.

Can you please answer the question?

Well, first of all I will have dispute this statement. There is no strong contradicting evidence that the Bible isn't factually inerrant, nothing.

Even in the face of the contradictory evidence we've put forth here (poppy seeds, round earth, heliocentrism), you continue to insist that the Bible is inerrant. Not because you've meticulously explained away these evidences, and not because you've shown us that the Bible itself claims to be inerrant, but simply because you insist that any inspired product of God must be without factual error (even if that product has passed through the hands of men). This is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad nauseum. And you admit it here:

I hate to disappoint you but I will continue to repeatedly insist that the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God.

Forgive me if I do not accept fallacious arguments. 1 Corinthians 14:20 tells me to be adult in my thinking.

If you're looking for a more informed reply than Scripture itself, well I'm sorry but I will again have to disappoint you.

Again, you haven't yet quoted any Scripture that supports your point. I'm not arguing with what the Scriptures say; I'm arguing with what you claim the Scriptures say.

P.S. Poppy seeds weren't sown by the 1st century Israelite.

Please refer to Assyrian's reply.

 

[vossler]

We ask you again and again WHY you never question the errancy of anything written within the Bible. Again and again, you say, "because the Bible is inerrant!" Can you not see the circular reasoning?

I'm sorry that you see this as circular reasoning. Let me see if I can straighten the circle out a bit. God is sovereign, loving and without error or fault. He doesn't lie, mislead or in anyway prove Himself to be incomplete. With that as my foundation, He then can and did transmit His instructions for man without error. If He didn't then He isn't sovereign and if He isn't sovereign then we can't trust Him.

ONCE (just once) you cited a verse: 2 Tim 3:16-17. You never explained how this would address the New Testement (as it was clearly written before the New Testement was compiled).

This statement would imply that the New Testament isn't Scripture. It would appear we obviously have a much bigger issue than what we thought if you don't see the New Testament as Scripture.

You never explained why exactly Genesis 1 would be made useless for teaching if it were allegorical like the parables Jesus taught with extensively.

Given that I wasn't asked that it is a fair non-response.

You never justified your interpretation of "God breathed" as "dictated" rather than "inspired" as found in many translations.

This sounds like a way for you to circumvent Scripture when it doesn't suite you. I'm not looking to circumvent it, just to do my best to follow and obey it.

In short, you have offered one SINGLE verse in support of Biblical inerrancy, and ignored any criticsm of your interpretation of that single verse. Is your refusal to CONSIDER the possibility of errors introduced by the human authors in the recounting of their inspired spiritual truths honestly based on this single verse, taken out of context and poorly translated?

Scriptual truth is based upon the complete Word of God. All of it is useful for teaching, reproof and correction. If there were errors then not all of it isn't useful. This isn't too difficult for me to put my arms around. Again, it would appear that you are looking for a means of introducing you're own interpretation so that you can support an agenda that contradicts God's.

 

[vossler]

The fact is that I would not see any good reason to say that the Bible is factually inerrant unless I viewed it as the exhaustive revelation (or a complete representation) of God, in which case its errancy would be equivalent to an errancy of God's.

Can't something be factual inerrant and not complete? If I went to purchase a car and the spec sheet said that this car has 300 hp and 275 lb ft of torque, but it didn't tell me how many cylinders or valves per cylinder it had that wouldn't cause the hp and torque figures to be incorrect, would they?

For I do not see why factual inerrancy is a necessary feature of a book intending to tell us about God and His salvation, or about God's revealing Himself in the form of a man.

It is a necessary feature so that people don't take His Word and manipulate it to say something that will tickle their ears.

I don't see how any factual errancy in the Bible would reflect that God makes mistakes.

Since God is without mistake and perfect, it would open the door to Him being imperfect.

I do not see how Christ's Gospel can be sullied in any way simply because Moses was not told that the mountains are millions of years old.

If only that were all.

Why are you so uncomfortable when our personal interpretations disagree? For two people coming from different directions and backgrounds to read one text and find two different conclusions is hardly unexpected.

True...where I have the problem is when we introduce man derived standards of measurement based not upon either God's Word or observable facts and then use those measurements to modify God's Word. There are plenty of interpretations of God's Word where I don't have such a strong objection to because they stay within the boundaries of God's Word.