Do most creationist agree with this?

[theIdi0t]

"First, if we deny inerrancy, we make God a liar. If there are errors in the original manuscripts, manuscripts that testify they were breathed out by God, one of two things must be true: either God purposely lied or he mistakenly lied. Either way this would indicate that God is capable of making or of producing errors. Needless to say, this would destroy our ability to trust any of God’s revelation and cause us to doubt God Himself.

Second, if we deny inerrancy we lose trust in God. If there are errors in Scripture, even if in the smallest detail, and these were placed there intentionally by God, how are we to maintain trust that He did not lie in other matters? When we lose trust in the Scriptures, we lose trust in God Himself and we may consequently lose our desire to be obedient to Him.

Third, if we deny the clear testimony of Scripture that it is inerrant, we make our minds a higher standard of truth than the Bible. At the outset of this series I indicated a concern I felt towards those who deny inerrancy is when they indicate that the doctrine does not “feel right.” But nowhere does the Bible appeal to our feelings or our reason for its authority or inerrancy. We must submit to the Word, for it will not submit to us. We must give to the Bible the place it claims for itself. We cannot stand in judgment over it.

Fourth, if we deny inerrancy, and indicate that small details are incorrect, we cannot consistently argue that all the doctrine the Bible contains is correct. Admitting error in even the smallest historical detail is only the thin edge of the wedge, for we then allow the possibility that there may be error in doctrine as well. And when we allow this possibility, the Christian faith soon crumbles into a mess of subjectivity and personal preference.

So inerrancy is not an optional doctrine—one we can take or leave. Rather, it is a doctrine at the very heart of the faith and without it we impoverish our faith and destroy our ability to trust and honor God."

from Challies.com?

I find this to be idolatrous? Perhaps that's an unfair accusation, but I don't know what else to call it. And I'm wondering if creationist are in agreement with such views, or if they find them problematic as I do?

 

[juvenissun]

One does not need to believe Biblical inerrancy to be saved.
A good Christian does not have to do that either.
For Christian, it is all about the strength of faith. If you believe the Bible has error, then your faith is smaller (you may not feel so, but you ARE). If you extended the same concept to gospel, you may lose your faith (and salvation). An example is Mormonism.
How would that matter? You will find it out when you see Him.

 

[TexasSky]

The meaning of inerrancy has changed since I was young. When I was young, it did not mean, "literal, word for word," as it seems to mean now.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, but I also believe that parts of the bible which were never meant to be "literal word for word" would be in error if they were taken that way.

For example: I do not believe that the world is just 6,100 years old.

I believe that the "days" in which God created the world are more likely to refer to "time periods that have a very definite "beginning and end" type of association.

I believe that God created things in the general order that is shown in the bible. I have no problems with that in regards to whether it was "God said it, and bam, it happened," or whether "God said it, and evolution did it."

My issues with evolution are origins theory and Big Bang. Big Bang does not fit scientifically or logically in many ways. The more science I learned, the less it fit. My issues with it were always scientific, never faith based, because from a faith standpoint, I had no trouble with, "Okay, so that is how God did it."

A lot of the bible is written in relation to customs of the time of the writers, culture at the time and idiomatic expression. Ergo, it can be "correct" without being "Clear to modern Christians."

If you try, for example, to follow the geneology, you will discover, no doubt, what you think are errors. However, if you know enough about biblical history, enough scripture, and enough about customs, you'll discover the biblical genology does fit. It is not, "Peter said it here," and "Saul said it there," but rather "Peter IS Saul, and here is where we see the name was changed." "Abram became Abraham." That kind of thing.

I believe that God is able to keep the importance of His word pure. If there are "printers errors" in the work, it does not change the overall context and meaning.

So, I accept that there was a great flood.
I don't really CARE if it was "limited to the middle east" which was, for all practical purposes, the entire world as far as God's people knew, or whether it was the entire globe.

I don't see an error in either definition of "world."

I know, that if you study certain biblical time lines, where you often see the phrase "7 years", it actually is "70" years between the first event and the second. So obviously there was some ...idiomatic playing with time.

How do you measure a "generation"? Is it "the 60's"? Is it, "Grandfather vs father"? Is it "years"? Is it "way of thinking?" How did THEY measure it when that part of the bible was written?

If I write "my generation" in a general context, I'm talking about people who pretty much went through high school the same time I did.

If I write "my generation" in regards to famliy, I'm talking about the grandchildren of my grandparents.

If I write "my generation" about politics, I'm talking about people who were too late for Korea, knew Vietnam, and watched the cold war rise and fall.

So, again, the bible isn't in error, but our knowledge is limited in regards to exact and correct translation of it.

 

[TexasSky]

The meaning of inerrancy has changed since I was young. When I was young, it did not mean, "literal, word for word," as it seems to mean now.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, but I also believe that parts of the bible which were never meant to be "literal word for word" would be in error if they were taken that way.

For example: I do not believe that the world is just 6,100 years old.

I believe that the "days" in which God created the world are more likely to refer to "time periods that have a very definite "beginning and end" type of association.

I believe that God created things in the general order that is shown in the bible. I have no problems with that in regards to whether it was "God said it, and bam, it happened," or whether "God said it, and evolution did it."

My issues with evolution are origins theory and Big Bang. Big Bang does not fit scientifically or logically in many ways. The more science I learned, the less it fit. My issues with it were always scientific, never faith based, because from a faith standpoint, I had no trouble with, "Okay, so that is how God did it."

A lot of the bible is written in relation to customs of the time of the writers, culture at the time and idiomatic expression. Ergo, it can be "correct" without being "Clear to modern Christians."

If you try, for example, to follow the geneology, you will discover, no doubt, what you think are errors. However, if you know enough about biblical history, enough scripture, and enough about customs, you'll discover the biblical genology does fit. It is not, "Peter said it here," and "Saul said it there," but rather "Peter IS Saul, and here is where we see the name was changed." "Abram became Abraham." That kind of thing.

I believe that God is able to keep the importance of His word pure. If there are "printers errors" in the work, it does not change the overall context and meaning.

So, I accept that there was a great flood.
I don't really CARE if it was "limited to the middle east" which was, for all practical purposes, the entire world as far as God's people knew, or whether it was the entire globe.

I don't see an error in either definition of "world."

I know, that if you study certain biblical time lines, where you often see the phrase "7 years", it actually is "70" years between the first event and the second. So obviously there was some ...idiomatic playing with time.

How do you measure a "generation"? Is it "the 60's"? Is it, "Grandfather vs father"? Is it "years"? Is it "way of thinking?" How did THEY measure it when that part of the bible was written?

If I write "my generation" in a general context, I'm talking about people who pretty much went through high school the same time I did.

If I write "my generation" in regards to famliy, I'm talking about the grandchildren of my grandparents.

If I write "my generation" about politics, I'm talking about people who were too late for Korea, knew Vietnam, and watched the cold war rise and fall.

So, again, the bible isn't in error, but our knowledge is limited in regards to exact and correct translation of it.

 

[shernren]

The meaning of inerrancy has changed since I was young. When I was young, it did not mean, "literal, word for word," as it seems to mean now.

...

My issues with evolution are origins theory and Big Bang. Big Bang does not fit scientifically or logically in many ways. The more science I learned, the less it fit. My issues with it were always scientific, never faith based, because from a faith standpoint, I had no trouble with, "Okay, so that is how God did it."

I would of course disagree with your scientific assessment, but that is a topic for a different thread (which I would love to hear from you about). But I am very interested in how you think "literalism" has changed since your day ... what time do you mean by "when you were young"? Who were the preachers of that day? I'm really, really interested in finding out.

 

[theIdi0t]

If you believe the Bible has error, then your faith is smaller (you may not feel so, but you ARE).

I'm curious to know how this works, allows me to give you an example with a believer A and believer B.


Matt 27:

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to it yourself." Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself.

The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, "It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood."

After consultation, they used it to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood.

Acts 1:

He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.

This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood.

In the Matthew account Judas flings the money into the temple and hangs himself. While the chief priest bought the "Field of Blood" with his betrayal money. In the Acts account Judas bought the "Field of Blood" with his betrayal money, not the chief priests.

Believer A claims these two differing accounts are not meant to be melded into a single account with the discrepancy smoothed away. He accepts that the blaring discrepancy is an error.

Believer B claims that Judas went back to the temple asked the priest for the money back, they refused, but the met in the middle and decided to buy a field together (so Judas did in fact buy the field, as well the chief priests) on the condition that after Judas died they could keep it.

Are you claiming that person A's faith in God is smaller than person B's?

 

[Mallon]

All that to say nothing of the fact that Matthew and Acts give different accounts of how Judas died, too.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you claiming that person A's faith in God is smaller than person B's?

Your example, in fact, is not needed for this issue. Example of that nature can be further found at a number of other places in the Bible.

The conclusion is still the same. If you think "they" are all "errors", then, according to me, you can simply forget about this book.

Why? I do not know how to answer that. As I said, it is a faith problem. There is not much logic in this. Normally, if one error is found somewhere, then it is very likely to find the second, the third, etc. Then why bother to defend any of them? If one error is confirmed, then it would be pretty hard to defend the second suspect.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to it yourself." Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself.

Hi. I don't see how they get "hanged" out of that greek word. I am just now looking at it so will study on it.
Here are 2 places the word "hanged" is used.

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged/kremasqentwn <2910> (5685) railed on him, saying, If thou be the Messiah, save thyself and us.

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged/kremasanteV <2910> on a tree:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 27:5 And tossing the silvers/arguria <694> into the sanctuary, he turns aside/anecwrhsen <402> (5656), and coming away/apelqwn <565> (5631) is led-away/aphgxato <519> (5668).

519. apagchomai ap-ang'-khom-ahee from 575 and agcho (to choke; akin to the base of 43); to strangle oneself off (i.e. to death):--hang himself.

520. apago ap-ag'-o from 575 and 71; to take off (in various senses):--bring, carry away, lead (away), put to death, take away.
575. apo apo' a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in
565. aperchomai ap-erkh'-om-ahee from 575 and 2064; to go off (i.e. depart), aside (i.e. apart) or behind (i.e. follow), literally or figuratively:--come, depart, go (aside, away, back, out, ... ways), pass away, be past.

 

[theIdi0t]

Your example, in fact, is not needed for this issue. Example of that nature can be further found at a number of other places in the Bible.

I used this example especially, because the error is pretty hard to deny.

I guess I should ask is the error visible to your eyes as well? And are you saying if you accept this as an error your faith will shrink? Earlier you said that a person who accepts an error has a smaller faith than the one who doesn't accept it. And I'm interested in how this question relates to your own faith.

Are you saying that you will lose a bit of your faith if you accept that there is an error here? And are you saying that the only way to keep your faith as strong as it is now, is by having faith that there is no error here at all, even as you read it now it seems there is?

Earlier you said the individual who accepts the error, has a faith that is smaller than the one who doesn't accept it, but this is only true if your faith is contingent on inerrancy. But this is what is true for you Juvenism, you're the one who is really saying that your faith suffers if you accept such an error. Is this not so?

How is the individual who has a faith that says, "God my faith in you does not diminish regardless of if the bible is inerrant or not", the one who has the smaller faith than the one who says, "God, if the Bible is not inerrant my faith in you diminishes"?

If one error is confirmed, then it would be pretty hard to defend the second suspect.[...] The conclusion is still the same. If you think "they" are all "errors", then, according to me, you can simply forget about this book.

You would rather forget about the Bible than accept that the Bible is not inerrant? Does this mean that you would give up your faith in Christ if the bible is not inerrant as well?

 

[Mallon]

Out of curiosity, where in the Bible does it proclaim itself to be inerrant on all matters?

 

[Scotishfury09]

565. aperchomai ap-erkh'-om-ahee from 575 and 2064; to go off (i.e. depart), aside (i.e. apart) or behind (i.e. follow), literally or figuratively:--come, depart, go (aside, away, back, out, ... ways), pass away, be past.

Just a small note. I don't know where you got this crazy scripture program but aperchomai is not pronounced like that. The alpha-iota diphthong is pronounced like a long "i" sound as in aisle. This obviously has no pertinence to anything you said, but it does raise some doubts to this program you're using.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just a small note. I don't know where you got this crazy scripture program but aperchomai is not pronounced like that. The alpha-iota diphthong is pronounced like a long "i" sound as in aisle. This obviously has no pertinence to anything you said, but it does raise some doubts to this program you're using.

Hi. I take the greek texts from this site. I use that Greek/Hebrew interlinear because I like to read word-for-word, especially the Hebrew OC.

Edit to add: Unfortunately that interlinear uses the W-H MS, so I compare every verse to the other 2 Major Greek Texts.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Textus Rec.) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria en tw naw anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

Byz./Maj.) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria en tw naw anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

W-H ) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria eiV ton naon anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

I can also read it in greek here:

http://www.kimmitt.co.uk/gnt/chapters.html

http://www.kimmitt.co.uk/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0127

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is one place JESUS mentiones about the "judas".
If one is reading from a Bible version that uses the W-H MS, the words "in the world" is left out of Matt 17:12, while the 2 other major Greek MSS have it in there, so this interlinear also left it out.
This is a helpful site for looking at the variances if interested:

http://www.dtl.org/alt/main/variants.htm

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 17:12 When I was with them [in the world], I kept them in Thy name whom Thou has given Me and I keep/guard, and not yet one out of them was-destroyed/perished/apwleto <622> except the son of the destruction/perdition/apwleiaV <684> that the Scripture may be being ful-filled.

ASV) John 17:12 While I was with them, ** *** ***** I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

NKJV) John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

Textus Rec.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

W-H ) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn ** ** ****** egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou w dedwkaV moi kai efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(Tex-Rec) John 17:12 ote <3753> {WHEN} hmhn <2252> (5713) {I WAS} met <3326> {WITH} autwn <846> {THEM} en <1722> {IN} tw <3588> {THE} kosmw <2889> {WORLD} egw <1473> {I} ethroun <5083> (5707) {WAS KEEPING} autouV <846> {THEM} en <1722> {IN} tw <3588> {THE} onomati <3686> {NAME} sou <4675> {OF THEE} ouV <3739> {WHOM} dedwkaV <1325> (5758) {THOU HAST GIVEN} moi <3427> {ME} efulaxa <5442> (5656) {I GUARDED,} kai <2532> {AND} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ex <1537> {OUT} autwn <846> {OF THEM} apwleto <622> (5639) {PERISHED} ei <1487> (IF} mh <3361> {NO} o <3588> {THE} uioV <5207> {SON} thV <3588> {OF THE} apwleiaV <684> {DESTRUCTION,} ina <2443> {THAT} h <3588> {THE} grafh <1124> {SCRIPTURE} plhrwqh <4137> (5686) {MAY BE BEING FULFILLED}.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Hi. I take the greek texts from this site. I use that Greek/Hebrew interlinear because I like to read word-for-word, especially the Hebrew OC.

Edit to add: Unfortunately that interlinear uses the W-H MS, so I compare every verse to the other 2 Major Greek Texts.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Textus Rec.) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria en tw naw anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

Byz./Maj.) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria en tw naw anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

W-H ) Matthew 27:5 kai riyaV ta arguria eiV ton naon anecwrhsen kai apelqwn aphgxato

I can also read it in greek here:

http://www.kimmitt.co.uk/gnt/chapters.html

http://www.kimmitt.co.uk/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0127

I have a question for you. In the actual thread it shows to be transliterated, but when I went to make a reply it shows as the actual Greek. Are you putting the Greek in your posts or the transliteration? Something on CF is doing one of the two and I'm severely confused.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have a question for you. In the actual thread it shows to be transliterated, but when I went to make a reply it shows as the actual Greek. Are you putting the Greek in your posts or the transliteration? Something on CF is doing one of the two and I'm severely confused.

Depends on on whether one wants to see the Koine greek, symbol greek or transliterated greek.
Let me see if all 3 will show up here and Wordpad has it where I can use all 3.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

Byz./Maj.) John 17:12 ote hmhn met autwn en tw kosmw egw ethroun autouV en tw onomati sou ouV dedwkaV moi efulaxa kai oudeiV ex autwn apwleto ei mh o uioV thV apwleiaV ina h grafh plhrwqh

 

[juvenissun]

I used this example especially, because the error is pretty hard to deny.

I guess I should ask is the error visible to your eyes as well? And are you saying if you accept this as an error your faith will shrink? Earlier you said that a person who accepts an error has a smaller faith than the one who doesn't accept it. And I'm interested in how this question relates to your own faith.

Are you saying that you will lose a bit of your faith if you accept that there is an error here? And are you saying that the only way to keep your faith as strong as it is now, is by having faith that there is no error here at all, even as you read it now it seems there is?

Earlier you said the individual who accepts the error, has a faith that is smaller than the one who doesn't accept it, but this is only true if your faith is contingent on inerrancy. But this is what is true for you Juvenism, you're the one who is really saying that your faith suffers if you accept such an error. Is this not so?

How is the individual who has a faith that says, "God my faith in you does not diminish regardless of if the bible is inerrant or not", the one who has the smaller faith than the one who says, "God, if the Bible is not inerrant my faith in you diminishes"?



You would rather forget about the Bible than accept that the Bible is not inerrant? Does this mean that you would give up your faith in Christ if the bible is not inerrant as well?

You have a good point.

Bible is a book contains information studied by many disciplines. For example, I can see those related to geology and some related to other sciences. But I know nothing about linguistic part and very little about culture part.

For example, you (?) or Glaudys can not see much geology in Bible, and may think the description "pillars of the earth" is figurative or even "an error" (in science). But I can see that it is a perfect term to describe the earth. It is not figurative and is not an error at all. But, it took me tens of years of study to be able to appreciate it. My knowledge is very limited. However, I challenge anyone who dare to say that the Bible contains any geological error, include those described in Genesis.

I can not address much on the question you raised. But I am sure there are people out there who can argue on ANY of the so-called inerrancy problem. I can see somebody in this forum have already started to argue about it. And I believe there are at least 100+ people contribute to this site are able to say various of wonderful details to answer your doubt. I also believe, if I spent 5 years to study your question, I WILL find an answer to show that it not only is not an error, but is something so true that one's faith would become stronger as a result of understanding.

A low IQ Christian does not understand many many verses in the Bible. But because of faith, he does not treat them as errors. An high IQ Christian would "proudly" point out: this or that is an "obvious" error, simply because of his own ignorance. Yes, indeed, I do think the smart guy does have a weaker or smaller faith than the dumb, but faithful person.

Bible has no error. Not even a fraction of one, on anything.

 

[Melethiel]

I have a question for you. In the actual thread it shows to be transliterated, but when I went to make a reply it shows as the actual Greek. Are you putting the Greek in your posts or the transliteration? Something on CF is doing one of the two and I'm severely confused.

It's a CF thing. Depends on your browser settings, I assume. Can you see Greek font in this?

&#959; &#919;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#962;

 

[shernren]

Mel, it's Greek to me.

As I think a bit more about it, I wonder why believing the "inerrancy" (in a scientific-historical sense) of the Bible should be considered a mark of faith. It is faith not in the Bible, but in a particular attitude or set of beliefs about the Bible.

An example I often use is sitting on a chair. When I have faith in a chair, I trust that it will take my weight when I sit on it. That faith becomes action when I actually sit on it, and that faith is rewarded if the chair holds my weight (which happens more often than not). It would be a strange thing, however, if I said I had faith in a chair and proceeded to throw it against a wall. And it would be a strange thing if, after the chair has shattered into pieces, I complain that my faith in the chair was unjustified.

Faith in the Bible is not a license to the kind of scientific-historical literalism that it is often used to justify. Trusting the Bible does not equate to reading science out of it, in the same way that trusting a chair's strength normally does not include throwing it at a wall.

Indeed, the Bible tells me itself that God is good, that God's creation is good and (still) reflects His glory, that God's creation is open to rational investigation and worth investigating. Furthermore, the Bible tells me itself that humanity, even fallen, possesses the capacity for rational logic (as the frequent appeals to logic attest to), and that physical objects often evidence supernatural miracles. Therefore, a Biblical, Christian view of the physical universe is a view in which it is open to unfettered investigation.

Therefore, if a scientific fact which was true was in the Bible, its presence in the Bible would not make it any more true than would be evident by rational investigation and coherence with physical evidence. Furthermore, if a scientific fact which was false was in the Bible, its presence in the Bible would not make it true if it was incoherent with physical evidence. And thus faith in the Bible does not extend to faith in the scientific presuppositions that some people read out of it.

I trust the Bible for everything I could never discover on my own, which is a lot. For everything else, I believe that God knew what He was doing when He created, and therefore that His creation is amenable to rational investigation. Would any other conception of His creation be worthy of Him?

 

[theIdi0t]

You have a good point.

Juvenissum you pretty much avoided all my questions. I asked you question about your faith, but you avoided responding? Why?

Bible has no error. Not even a fraction of one, on anything.

And I addressed you here. As see it, you do see the inconstancy, but have faith that it's not an inconstancy, and I made this point in my last post to you. But I would appreciate it Juvenism if you would go back and answer those questions pertaining to your faith and what would lessen or make you lose it.