So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

[rjw]

Well no, based on my experiences with many creationists across several different forums.

Two concepts are linked which show why Genesis is not necessarily the infallible and inerrant word of God:-

1) What the Bible claims for itself, and

2) The fruit many devout believers bear while under infallible guidance.

Take a look at the verses (and argument) presented at this link:-

Inspiration of the Bible: 
Is the Bible Infallible, Inerrant, and Verbally Inspired?

The claim that these verses show inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible generally, and Genesis specifically, unravels when you consider two things:-

1) Humans wrote those words, and

2) At best the humans who wrote them claimed to have, or actually did have an intimate relationship with God and to be guided by God.

However, many forum creationists claim exactly these kinds of things:-

1) An intimate relationship with God,

2) Guidance the the Holy Spirit, the omnipotent source of pure truth and justice,

- and it is often seen, on examining the exchanges in these various forums that despite having such impeccable and unimpeachable guidance, creationists:-

1) Often make demonstrable mistakes,

2) Often write silly things, and

3) At times even lie.


If given this kind of relationship with God, forum creationists do no better, than mistakes, silly things , even lies, then why should they, and anyone else expect that writers of the Old and New Testaments did any better?

A lot of their writing may have been factual and accurate recording but a lot of it may well be mistaken, silly, and perhaps even lie.

Those writers, while supposedly having omnipotent and infallible guidance are realistically, no different to forum creationists, and look at what forum creationists achieve while under the same guidance.

Hence we have no reason to think that Genesis is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Even if God exists and guided the writing of the Bible's texts, it may well contain mistakes, and silly ideas.

 

[Strathos]

I don't support Genesis as literal history, although anyone today who claims to have a connection with God as close as the prophets of the Bible is most certainly full of it.

 

[CabVet]

Genesis is not even internally consistent (Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories), how can it possibly be infallible and inerrant history?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't support Genesis as literal history, although anyone today who claims to have a connection with God as close as the prophets of the Bible is most certainly full of it.

Sinners wrote the Bible, and they weren't shy to include their particular sins in their writings for all generations to see.

Unlike scientists today, who won't even admit they are sinners.

 

[CabVet]

Sinners wrote the Bible, and they weren't shy to include their particular sins in their writings for all generations to see.

Funny how the Bible never changes, even though it was written by sinners.

Unlike scientists today, who won't even admit they are sinners.

Funny how science is always changing and scientists (unlike the religious folk) constantly admit they are wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Unlike scientists today, who won't even admit they are sinners.

I imagine the scientists who adhere to religions that have a concept of Sin have no problem admitting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how the Bible never changes, even though it was written by sinners.

It was written on the behalf & request of God.

Funny how science is always changing and scientists (unlike the religious folk) constantly admit they are wrong.

When it comes to science, I don't admit to being right!

 

[AV1611VET]

I imagine the scientists who adhere to religions that have a concept of Sin have no problem admitting it.

Know any?

 

[Old Flat Top]

Well no, based on my experiences with many creationists across several different forums.

Two concepts are linked which show why Genesis is not necessarily the infallible and inerrant word of God:-

1) What the Bible claims for itself, and

2) The fruit many devout believers bear while under infallible guidance.

Take a look at the verses (and argument) presented at this link:-

The claim that these verses show inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible generally, and Genesis specifically, unravels when you consider two things:-

1) Humans wrote those words, and

2) At best the humans who wrote them claimed to have, or actually did have an intimate relationship with God and to be guided by God.

However, many forum creationists claim exactly these kinds of things:-

1) An intimate relationship with God,

2) Guidance the the Holy Spirit, the omnipotent source of pure truth and justice,

- and it is often seen, on examining the exchanges in these various forums that despite having such impeccable and unimpeachable guidance, creationists:-

1) Often make demonstrable mistakes,

2) Often write silly things, and

3) At times even lie.


If given this kind of relationship with God, forum creationists do no better, than mistakes, silly things , even lies, then why should they, and anyone else expect that writers of the Old and New Testaments did any better?

A lot of their writing may have been factual and accurate recording but a lot of it may well be mistaken, silly, and perhaps even lie.

Those writers, while supposedly having omnipotent and infallible guidance are realistically, no different to forum creationists, and look at what forum creationists achieve while under the same guidance.

Hence we have no reason to think that Genesis is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Even if God exists and guided the writing of the Bible's texts, it may well contain mistakes, and silly ideas.

Hi rjw, good post.

I think sometimes that a discussion becomes predefined by the terms that we use. Terms such as "infallible", "inerrant". In my faith we never use such terms. We consider the Bible to be accurate in the message that it communicates about God, about the history of God's "witnesses", about the history of mankind and, from that, why things are the way that they are, and accurate about what the future holds.

If I was to tell another why they should consider what the Bible has to say, I would not tell them that they should do so because it is infallible or inerrant, but that they should do so because it is trustworthy. And, I would tell them that not simply because it is written but, because it is written and because I have learned by experience that it is trustworthy.

However, I would not expect another to have the level of trust that I do simply on my say so, I encourage others to read it for themselves, to test it out for themselves in some way.

The Bible puts across a message that, I think, accurately describes things the way that they are and that will help us in finding our way through life.

john

 

[essentialsaltes]

Know any?

Does the concept of original sin count? There have been and are many Catholic priest-scientists.

 

[Doveaman]

The claim that these verses show inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible generally, and Genesis specifically, unravels when you consider two things:-

1) Humans wrote those words

No they didn't. God wrote those words.

The humans were the mere instruments God used to write the Bible, just as Moses was the mere instrument God used to write the Ten Commandments.

"No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Men spoke from God and they wrote from God.

Pens do not write books, humans use pens to write books.

Humans did not write the Bible, God used humans to write the Bible.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." - (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Only a book free from errors would be suitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. A book of errors would be completely unreliable. So it is absolutely necessary that the Bible be free from errors in order for it to be proven reliable.

The errors are in the human interpretations of the Bible and not in the Bible itself.

.

 

[biggles53]

No they didn't. God wrote those words.

Errrr....no it didn't. The Bible was written by some men. This we know.....all else is unsupported assertion...

Only a book free from errors would be suitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. A book of errors would be completely unreliable. So it is absolutely necessary that the Bible be free from errors in order for it to be proven reliable.

The errors are in the human interpretations of the Bible and not in the Bible itself.

.

That claim is being made by a human......who could equally be in error in making it.....

 

[Theodor1]

Well no, based on my experiences with many creationists across several different forums.

So your opinion of the Bible has nothing to do with the Bible or the people that wrote the Bible.

 

[rjw]

So your opinion of the Bible has nothing to do with the Bible or the people that wrote the Bible.

I assume they were humans who claimed to have an intimate relationship with and to be guided by God?

 

[rjw]

No they didn't. God wrote those words.

Assertion.

The humans were the mere instruments God used to write the Bible, just as Moses was the mere instrument God used to write the Ten Commandments.

Let me guess - your words in this post are likewise written by God?

"No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - (2 Peter 1:20-21).

That's what many creationists claim, that they do not interpret the Bible because it speaks for itself.

However, if you folk don't interpret the Bible, but rather God tells you how to think about it, then why all the different versions of God, such that you are often each other's heretics and "not true Christian"?

The author who penned those words you quote is simply another human, presumably with all the foibles of the creationists I mention.

Men spoke from God and they wrote from God.

Assertion.

Pens do not write books, humans use pens to write books.

Not an assertion ...

Humans did not write the Bible, God used humans to write the Bible.

... Assertion.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." - (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Only a book free from errors would be suitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. A book of errors would be completely unreliable. So it is absolutely necessary that the Bible be free from errors in order for it to be proven reliable.

Assertion.

That verse you quote mentions nothing about infallibility. It says nothing about the Bible, which did not exist when that verse was written.

All it says is that Scripture is useful. My car is very useful for transporting me from A to B. And it's a very reliable car. But it's hardly a perfect car, and a car that is without fault.

The errors are in the human interpretations of the Bible and not in the Bible itself.

.

Assertion.

If God guiding humans produces erroneous interpretations, then quite reasonably, God guiding humans produces erroneous text.

 

[rjw]

Errrr....no it didn't. The Bible was written by some men. This we know.....all else is unsupported assertion...



That claim is being made by a human......who could equally be in error in making it.....

That humans write with pens, was correct.

Beyond that, you are correct - all assertion.

 

[rjw]

Hi rjw, good post.

I think sometimes that a discussion becomes predefined by the terms that we use. Terms such as "infallible", "inerrant". In my faith we never use such terms. We consider the Bible to be accurate in the message that it communicates about God, about the history of God's "witnesses", about the history of mankind and, from that, why things are the way that they are, and accurate about what the future holds.

If I was to tell another why they should consider what the Bible has to say, I would not tell them that they should do so because it is infallible or inerrant, but that they should do so because it is trustworthy. And, I would tell them that not simply because it is written but, because it is written and because I have learned by experience that it is trustworthy.

However, I would not expect another to have the level of trust that I do simply on my say so, I encourage others to read it for themselves, to test it out for themselves in some way.

The Bible puts across a message that, I think, accurately describes things the way that they are and that will help us in finding our way through life.

john

Gidday OFT, and thanks. I like the 2 Tim 3:16 version because I think that is how the Bible should be used. And it often is. That is, it is a focus for teaching, inspiring, often in things that are good for the individual and for the community.

My annoyance is when it goes beyond that, and becomes a sledge hammer to bully others with, by people who are often little more than ignorant cowards in that they have no sustainable argument, and so imply that because their assertions are words that God agrees with, because they are guided by God, then said assertions should be accepted, no questions asked.

You are not one of those folk, fortunately, and while I disagree that the Bible is necessarily trustworthy, in the sense of always being some absolute truth, I do appreciate your sentiment.

 

[rjw]

I don't support Genesis as literal history, although anyone today who claims to have a connection with God as close as the prophets of the Bible is most certainly full of it.

I think the prophets of old were simply folk who told governments and societies the probable consequences of not doing the right thing, but they couched it in terms of God.

 

[rjw]

Genesis is not even internally consistent (Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories), how can it possibly be infallible and inerrant history?

I agree.

But goodness, the accommodations and twisting some folk go to in order to make them seamless and compatible and from there, infallible history.

 

[CabVet]

I agree.

But goodness, the accommodations and twisting some folk go to in order to make them seamless and compatible and from there, infallible history.

Faith.