The Bible: Literal Truth and Completely Inerrant?

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

There are some people on this board who think that the Bible is always literally true and inerrant throughout. According to at least one of them, I am a Scripture Denying, Christ Denying, Liberal Goofball, who is so entrenched in my humanist religion, that I would actually call God a liar to preserve my idolatry. Well, you have been warned.

Now, I actually rate the Bible quite highly, and I think there is a lot of good stuff in it. But there is also a lot of bad stuff. And I think you have to read the thing intelligently, with insight, and in the context of the times in which it was written, to get the most out of it. This is not denying scripture, but interpreting it. There is a difference.

So, is the Bible inerrant? I think it can be proved that it isn't. The Bible contains contradictions. A contradiction is where it says one thing about some topic in one place, and another thing somewhere else. Since both things cannot simultaneously be true, we need to choose one thing or the other as the truth of the matter, and consider the remaining thing false. If there is something false in the Bible, it cannot be inerrant.

Therefore, we need to think about what we are reading, rather than just accept whatever scripture says. We need, in other words, to read the Bible critically. I know this might come as a shock to some of you, to criticise scripture, but if you are to get the most out of your faith, that is what is required.

By the way, here is a list of (some of) the contradictions to be found in the Bible.

I rest the case for the prosecution, m'lud.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Spaceman 3 · Oct 14, 2013

2ndRateMind said:
There are some people on this board who think that the Bible is always literally true and inerrant throughout. According to at least one of them, I am a Scripture Denying, Christ Denying, Liberal Goofball, who is so entrenched in my humanist religion, that I would actually call God a liar to preserve my idolatry. Well, you have been warned.

Now, I actually rate the Bible quite highly, and I think there is a lot of good stuff in it. But there is also a lot of bad stuff. And I think you have to read the thing intelligently, with insight, and in the context of the times in which it was written, to get the most out of it. This is not denying scripture; but interpreting it. There is a difference.

So, is the Bible inerrant? I think it can be proved that it isn't. The Bible contains contradictions. A contradiction is where it says one thing in one place, and a different thing somewhere else. Since both things cannot simultaneously be true, we need to choose one thing or the other as the truth of the matter, and consider the remaining thing false. If there is something false in the Bible, it cannot be inerrant.

Therefore, we need to think about what we are reading, rather than just accept whatever scripture says. We need, in other words, to read the Bible, critically. I know this might come as a shock to some of you, to criticise scripture, but if you are to get the most out of your faith, that is what is required.

By the way, here is a list of (some of) the contradictions to be found in the Bible.

I rest the case for the prosecution, m'lud.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well... I imagine that the general concensus is that if it is the 'Word' of God, then it must be perfect & holy as He is. The Bible itself does claim that the scripture is 'God breathed'.

To believe otherwise could cause problems for believers of an omnipotent, omniscient, inerrant supreme being I guess.

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

Spaceman 3 said:
Well... I imagine that the general concensus is that if it is the 'Word' of God, then it must be perfect & holy as He is. The Bible itself does claim that the scripture is 'God breathed'.

To believe otherwise could cause problems for believers of an omnipotent, omniscient, inerrant supreme being I guess.

Sorry to disagree, but it doesn't matter what the general consensus is. Holy it may be, but if the Bible contradicts itself, it ain't perfect, however 'God breathed' it is considered to be.

However, I don't think that that necessarily causes a problem for believers in a perfect God. It is quite coherent to think that fallible men wrote the Bible, which was inspired by, but not dictated by, Him.

Cheers, 2RM.

Spaceman 3 · Oct 14, 2013

2ndRateMind said:
Sorry to disagree, but it doesn't matter what the general consensus is. Holy it may be, but if the Bible contradicts itself, it ain't perfect, however 'God breathed' it is considered to be.

However, I don't think that that necessarily causes a problem for believers in a perfect God. It is quite coherent to think that fallible men wrote the Bible, which was inspired by, but not dictated by, Him.

Cheers, 2RM.

Sorry to disagree with what? I told you what I imagine the general consensus to be, not what my opinion is.

You don't think the general consensus among Christians is that The Bible is the Holy Word of God, & therefore infallible?

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

Spaceman 3 said:
You don't think the general consensus among Christians is that The Bible is the Holy Word of God, & therefore infallible?

Ummm. Actually, I don't think there is such a consensus in Europe. There may be in America, I don't know. But even if there was, it wouldn't matter. As I said above, such a consensus would be demonstrably wrong.

Cheers, 2RM.

Spaceman 3 · Oct 14, 2013

Well, the jury's out on that one. Every Christian that I've come across would defend the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, & to be fair, they'd have quite a few scriptures to choose from to back that up.

Anyway 2RM... which one are you?

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

jpcedotal · Oct 14, 2013

Is this a Bible-Bashing thread or just a Christian Hatin' one?

The Bible was wrote for people of God. If you are not one of them, then there will be a lot in it that seems to contradict itself.

The only way to truly read the Bible is to believe 100% the first 4 words of it:

"In the beginning God"

If your belief system contradicts these first four words, then a Bible discussion thread is worthless because you are still ignorant of the Word because you do not a have a true relationship with God.

Now, if you are Christian and would like to discuss the hard passages of the Bible, then there is room for discussion.

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

Spaceman 3 said:
Well, the jury's out on that one. Every Christian that I've come across would defend the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, & to be fair, they'd have quite a few scriptures to choose from to back that up.

You can't use Bible assertions to demonstrate the inerrancy of the Bible. The argument is entirely too circular. The Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true! You either accept that, or you don't, and nothing is proven either way. If you want to demonstrate the inerrancy of the Bible, at the very least, you need to show that it is entirely coherent, consistent and comprehensive. And those are just the internal tests; externally, it needs to agree with scientific, archeological, historical and and other pragmatic findings. And sometimes, we find, it just doesn't.

So a certain degree of native scepticism is a valuable guard against error.

Spaceman 3 said:
Anyway 2RM... which one are you?

Well, actually, 7. None of the above.

Since you so kindly, and amusingly, ask!

If I were to state my stance it would be along the lines of any enlightened modern liberal position, that extracts the spirit of the book from the words of the book, and then discards the words. If you check my posts, you will find I very rarely use quotations of scripture, and never without a rational explanation of what I think they mean. And I think this is the correct way to approach scripture, and that an over zealous attention to the allegedly infallible Word can be a direct path to moral, and therefore spiritual, error.

Cheers, 2RM.

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

jpcedotal said:
Is this a Bible-Bashing thread or just a Christian Hatin' one?

You'll have to wait and see. I hope it will be neither, just an honest enquiry into the truth of the matter.

jpcedotal said:
The Bible was wrote for people of God. If you are not one of them, then there will be a lot in it that seems to contradict itself.

A contradiction is a contradiction, whether you believe in God or not.

jpcedotal said:
The only way to truly read the Bible is to believe 100% the first 4 words of it:

"In the beginning God"

If your belief system contradicts these first four words, then a Bible discussion thread is worthless because you are still ignorant of the Word because you do not a have a true relationship with God.

So it's only possible to discuss the faith usefully with people who already agree with you? How convenient. How insular. How congenial to error. I can hear the lesser demon Screwtape snickering to himself as we speak.

jpcedotal said:
Now, if you are Christian and would like to discuss the hard passages of the Bible, then there is room for discussion.

We'll see.

Best wishes, 2RM.

graceandpeace · Oct 14, 2013

I agree with the OP.

I don't think the Bible is inerrant or infallible - rather, I believe the Bible is inspired by God & contains everything necessary for our salvation.

I think holding to the idea that the Bible is perfect leads to numerous difficulties; still, there are some believers who take such a position & I will not fault them, however misguided I think they may be.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2013

jpcedotal said:
The only way to truly read the Bible is to believe 100% the first 4 words of it:

"In the beginning God"

If your belief system contradicts these first four words, then a Bible discussion thread is worthless because you are still ignorant of the Word because you do not a have a true relationship with God.

I would agree that scripture is written for believers and isn't particularly worthwhile debating, except with believers.

The Lord defines the nature and purpose of scripture:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

This means that the purpose of scripture is a study of righteousness--basically the text of a particular type of philosophy. If you don't buy into that philosophy from the beginning, there isn't much reason to debate its fine points.

It's also important to note that scripture does not declare itself the textbook for that which is observable in nature: It's not a textbook of astronomy, archeology, mathematics, biology, physiology, physics, or history, except to the extent that they relate to the revelation of righteousness unto God.

For the purpose the Lord defines scripture, it is reliable and inerrant. Its truth is absolute, but that truth is often figuratively expressed.

AphroditeGoneAwry · Oct 14, 2013

The Bible isn't always, or even often, to be taken literally. If you take it literally, not only will you be misled, but you will miss the deeper meanings and symbolisms in it.

That doesn't mean it isn't of God. It is completely inspired and the best guidebook ever written for man to draw close to our Creator.

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

I like to think its inspired by God and written by man. So of course there is room for error.. it was written by man. translated from other languages by man. So yes.. it will have errors, but not because of God.

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

When it comes to contradictions a pastor once told me the rule of thumb was New Testament>Old Testament. I'm reading this web site you posted and I see where people see this contradictions.. which firmly sets my understanding of the bible of what was written for that time and what is written for all time. The hard part is for people to understand what is what.

and the more I read this web site the more I see this guy nitpicking verses and throwing them out of context to look like contradictions.

Take his "War or Peace?" argument:

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Ex 15:3 is Miriam singing a song of glory to the Lord, not God saying a word.

Ro 15:33 is a blessing from Paul to the church of rome.

How is this a contradiction? His evidence is weak. I don't even know if I want to bother reading past that.

2ndRateMind · Oct 14, 2013

No worries. It only takes one valid contradiction to prove the point. As it happens, my favourite contradictions are not listed at all, and in Genesis, in the two differing accounts of the creation.

Anyway, my purpose is not to destroy anyone's faith, but to encourage an intelligent, thoughtful, careful response to the relevant literature.

Cheers, 2RM.

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

Honestly I've seen better contradictions I couldn't quite explain, but right now I can't seem to think of any. Maybe someone will find a good list we could discuss.

Edit: Found one http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

I think the biggest issues is there aren't really contradictions as there are bad translations to make you think so. Whenever someone gives me a verse I tend to read it in as many bible versions as I can.

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

Example: God isn't all powerful?
Judges 1:19 [KJV]
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

God could not do something? Well lets look at the other translations.

NIV:
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron."

NLT:
"The LORD was with the people of Judah, and they took possession of the hill country. But they failed to drive out the people living in the plains, who had iron chariots."

ESV:
"And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron."

Depending on your translation.. you might get a contradiction.. you might not.

RDKirk · Oct 14, 2013

ChristsSoldier115 said:
I think the biggest issues is there aren't really contradictions as there are bad translations to make you think so. Whenever someone gives me a verse I tend to read it in as many bible versions as I can.

Translations aren't bad. The primary issue is that Westerners think with Greek-based epistemology rather than Middle Eastern epistemology. How a Middle Easterner determines "truth" can differ significantly from how a Greek determines "truth."

When Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" he was actually touching on a hot topic at the border of a Graeco-Roman like him and a Judean like Jesus.

The differences between the two exist today.

An example is a reading of Song of Songs. With all that huge amount of description of the lover and the beloved, we still don't really know what they looked like, because they described each other in terms of emotional impressions rather than physical descriptions (the way a Greek would).

How many Israelites died in the plague of Peor? In the OT, it says 30,000. Paul recounts it in the NT as 20,000. To a Greek, that's a hideous error; to a Judean, the original point was just "a whole heck of a lot," and both numbers are true.

Was all Jerusalem alarmed at the birth of Jesus? Scripture says so--it says Herod and "all of Jerusalem with him" were alarmed. Yet, it also says there were at least two residents of Jerusalem who were waiting for the birth of Jesus and rejoiced to see Him when He was presented at the temple. So was "all" accurate or not?

How did Judas die? The different accounts between Matthew and Acts are offensive to Greek epistemology--and because we think Greek, we have made up several different explanations of the difference out of thin air. But the answer is: Judas died unrepentant, unforgiven, and in ignominy...and both accounts say so.

A years or so ago, there was a modern example of the difference between Greek epistemology and Middle Eastern epistemology.

There had been a Hamas rocket attack on a Jewish portion of Jerusalem. Four rockets had been fired, the first three nearly simultaneously, the fourth a split second later.

A Palestinian photographer had captured the event. But as his camera clicked, it caught the first three missiles in one image, and the fourth in a subsequent image. This was purely a matter of the timing of the shutter and the narrow angle of view of the lens, because all observers of the event actually saw four missiles soaring through the sky at the same time.

So the photographer manipulated the image, putting all four missiles into one image, and that image was published in the Palestinian and other Arab media.

At some point, the news that the published image had been manipulated, creating a huge furor among the Western journalism ranks. Manipulation! To the Middle Eastern mind, it was the production of truth--there were four missiles fired, an observer would have seen four missiles, the text spoke of four missiles, so the image showed four missiles. To the Greek-thinking mind, it was the height of error.

ChristsSoldier115 · Oct 14, 2013

RDKirk said:
Translations aren't bad. The primary issue is that Westerners think with Greek-based epistemology rather than Middle Eastern epistemology. How a Middle Easterner determines "truth" can differ significantly from how a Greek determines "truth."

When Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" he was actually touching on a hot topic at the border of a Graeco-Roman like him and a Judean like Jesus.

The differences between the two exist today.

An example is a reading of Song of Songs. With all that huge amount of description of the lover and the beloved, we still don't really know what they looked like, because they described each other in terms of emotional impressions rather than physical descriptions (the way a Greek would).

How many Israelites died in the plague of Peor? In the OT, it says 30,000. Paul recounts it in the NT as 20,000. To a Greek, that's a hideous error; to a Judean, the original point was just "a whole heck of a lot," and both numbers are true.

Was all Jerusalem alarmed at the birth of Jesus? Scripture says so--it says Herod and "all of Jerusalem with him" were alarmed. Yet, it also says there were at least two residents of Jerusalem who were waiting for the birth of Jesus and rejoiced to see Him when He was presented at the temple. So was "all" accurate or not?

How did Judas die? The different accounts between Matthew and Acts are offensive to Greek epistemology--and because we think Greek, we have made up several different explanations of the difference out of thin air. But the answer is: Judas died unrepentant, unforgiven, and in ignominy...and both accounts say so.

A years or so ago, there was a modern example of the difference between Greek epistemology and Middle Eastern epistemology.

There had been a Hamas rocket attack on a Jewish portion of Jerusalem. Four rockets had been fired, the first three nearly simultaneously, the fourth a split second later.

A Palestinian photographer had captured the event. But as his camera clicked, it caught the first three missiles in one image, and the fourth in a subsequent image. This was purely a matter of the timing of the shutter and the narrow angle of view of the lens, because all observers of the event actually saw four missiles soaring through the sky at the same time.

So the photographer manipulated the image, putting all four missiles into one image, and that image was published in the Palestinian and other Arab media.

At some point, the news that the published image had been manipulated, creating a huge furor among the Western journalism ranks. Manipulation! To the Middle Eastern mind, it was the production of truth--there were four missiles fired, an observer would have seen four missiles, the text spoke of four missiles, so the image showed four missiles. To the Greek-thinking mind, it was the height of error.

Huh I'm going to start researching Middle East epistemology and Greek epistemology now. I have a feeling to this enlighten me to the truths of the scripture.

The Bible: Literal Truth and Completely Inerrant?

Pilgrim Defiant

Active Member

Pilgrim Defiant

Active Member

Pilgrim Defiant

Active Member

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Pilgrim Defiant

Pilgrim Defiant

Episcopalian

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Mabaho na Kuya

Mabaho na Kuya

Pilgrim Defiant

Mabaho na Kuya

Mabaho na Kuya

Mabaho na Kuya

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Mabaho na Kuya

Similar threads