I have a question for those who believe in Biblical inerrancy: do you also read the Bible literally? For example, do you believe in a literal 7 day creation? Or is it possible to believe in inerrancy but not a 7 day creation?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Question about inerrancy
- Thread starter yankeefan
- Start date
Literalism and inerrancy are not the same thing. The bible contains parables, and we certainly don't require those to be actual/literal in order for them to be without error. The bible contains poetry - we don't require poems to be literal in order to be without error.
Actually, I hate the way the word literal gets used these days. A literal reading is reading with respect to the genre of literature involved. Reading the bible literally means reading prophesy as prophesy, history as history, poetry and poetry, and allegory as allegory.
Actually, I hate the way the word literal gets used these days. A literal reading is reading with respect to the genre of literature involved. Reading the bible literally means reading prophesy as prophesy, history as history, poetry and poetry, and allegory as allegory.
Upvote
0
Inerrancy is about "no error". It means that the message which intended to be conveyed is accurate. IMHO, inerrancy has to be conditioned on interpretation.
I personally believe the intended message of Genesis 1 is theological, not scientific, and I also believe that the theological message of Genesis 1 is without error. This makes me a non-literalist inerranist (with respect to Genesis 1).
Others will likely disagree.
Upvote
0
I agree with your assessment of Genesis. But this is not what is normally meant by the term. The usual definition is given by the Chicago Statement: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf. See particularly the following:
I do understand that there are issues in trying to apply this. As others note, parts of the Bible are intended as metaphor or parable, and not as history. I would agree that the final editor of Genesis almost certainly did not intend the two creation accounts to be taken as history. If the author intended it not to be historical, than by the usual definition of inerrancy, historical truth is not asserted.
But the fact is, the concept of inerrancy came out of arguments about the historical truth of precisely those parts of the Bible. Given how the term is normally understood, I think it's misleading use of language to use inerrancy for a view that says Gen 1 is not historical.
Upvote
0
OK Hedrick, I see.
It is another case of a word now having a meaning attached beyond that of the dictionary definition, like "literal" and "fundamentalist".
It is another case of a word now having a meaning attached beyond that of the dictionary definition, like "literal" and "fundamentalist".
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2004
- 14,082
- 1,003
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I am not sure inerrant is a useful term. It seems to have gained currency in the Reformation, where the Reformers proposed the bible as inerrant against Papal and church authority.
I see 'inspired; as Spirit guided so that we have a basis for a confident belief based in the biblical narratives as constituting a reliable account of God's dealing with humanity within history. Thus, issues of genre, authorial style and intent, principles of literary interpretation and how each document was understood by its initial audience are all crucial factors in how I read the Scriptures. They have given to me a defensible context and an existential reality of a relationship with God through Christ.
The creation story brings many of those matters into focus. I see it as a statement of the 'Why?' of creation, not the when and how. It is a reframing of ancient creation myths, of the creation of earth as God's palace/temple, giving to the Israelites in the desert post exodus a basis for their belief for the only God there is, in contrast to the prevailing polytheistic views of the surrounding nations, and His purposes for getting Israel out of Egypt as part on an ongoing story rooted in history to restore fallen humanity. Jesus became the climax of that story.
John
NZ
I see 'inspired; as Spirit guided so that we have a basis for a confident belief based in the biblical narratives as constituting a reliable account of God's dealing with humanity within history. Thus, issues of genre, authorial style and intent, principles of literary interpretation and how each document was understood by its initial audience are all crucial factors in how I read the Scriptures. They have given to me a defensible context and an existential reality of a relationship with God through Christ.
The creation story brings many of those matters into focus. I see it as a statement of the 'Why?' of creation, not the when and how. It is a reframing of ancient creation myths, of the creation of earth as God's palace/temple, giving to the Israelites in the desert post exodus a basis for their belief for the only God there is, in contrast to the prevailing polytheistic views of the surrounding nations, and His purposes for getting Israel out of Egypt as part on an ongoing story rooted in history to restore fallen humanity. Jesus became the climax of that story.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
I agree completely. But the term inerrancy was invented specifically to oppose this kind of analysis. There are several major disagreements represented by the concept:
* That the Pentateuch and a number of other OT books are history, not myth.
* That in historical matters, the Bible is completely accurate. Anyplace where there are disagreements between different accounts in the Bible, or between the Bible and external records, science, etc, there's an explanation that preserves the complete accuracy and consistency of all the Biblical accounts.
* That certain ethical statements in the Bible must be applied directly today. We can't say that there are differences between the Biblical situation and our own.
From the little I know of the history of interpretation, inerrancy is from the generation after the Reformers. The Reformers spoke of literal meaning, opposed to traditional allegorical approaches, or plain sense. Calvin at least (whose Biblical work I know much better than Luthers) used the best scholarship of the time. I think he and Luther believed that if they went for the plain sense, and used the best historical and critical scholarship, people would generally agree on what the Bible said. Calvin spoke of God as the author of Scripture. His theoretical statements look like inerrancy, but his actual interpretation simply doesnt seem to engage that issue. E.g. when there are minor disagreements on numbers he says they dont matter. A number of times he said that the author of Genesis describes things as they appeared to people at the time, even though science knew better. He said that the Sermon on the Mount was constructed by Matthew. But in my view he hadnt encountered the questions leading to inerrancy, and had a somewhat naive view that good scholarship would bring reasonable agreement.
The problem is that it didnt. There were issues among Protestants on infant baptism, the Real Presence, and other things. This led to accusations by Catholics that sola scriptura was meaningless, because no one could agree on what Scripture says without a way to have authoritative interpretations. One major Protestant response was that people were taking too many personal liberties in interpretation. If you just got literal enough, you could find a single interpretation that everyone could agree upon. Combine this response with the challenges of scientific change (the new astronomy, followed by evolution) and critical thought applied to the Bible, and you start to get inerrancy in the modern sense. Some people claim that inerrancy is a 19th Cent concept. Its probably true that modern inerrancy developed in opposition to higher criticism and evolution, but it builds on an approach that goes back to the 16th Cent. Im not sure, however, that it quite goes back to the original Reformers. Indeed I think you can make a good case that the Reformers were using critical methods as the existed in the early 16th Cent to attack traditional interpretations. Thats why I find the rejection of criticism by many modern Protestants ironic.
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2004
- 14,082
- 1,003
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Thanks Hedrik for that information.
I suspect, not being up with too much church hstory, that some more modern beliefs in inerrancy arose as a counter to liberal scholarship that 'wrote off' much of the Bible. Unfortunately, that became an anti-scholarship position which has led to several concepts I do not see as adequate. For example:
a) An anti-scholarship stance still rejects modern evangelical scholarship and anything arising from that which differs from what is already believed, and is thereby is deemed to be wrong
b) Unnecessary tensions are created between science and Christian belief, with an anti-science seemingly adopted.
c) A virtually acultural 'dictation' notion of inspiration is adopted, often with the rider that the original documents were faultless. I find little value with this approach on several grounds, and that even f it were true, today we don't have those documents anyway. That leaves us with scriptures that are somewhat 'porous'. A more robust concept of inspiration doe snot have that problem.
John
NZ
I suspect, not being up with too much church hstory, that some more modern beliefs in inerrancy arose as a counter to liberal scholarship that 'wrote off' much of the Bible. Unfortunately, that became an anti-scholarship position which has led to several concepts I do not see as adequate. For example:
a) An anti-scholarship stance still rejects modern evangelical scholarship and anything arising from that which differs from what is already believed, and is thereby is deemed to be wrong
b) Unnecessary tensions are created between science and Christian belief, with an anti-science seemingly adopted.
c) A virtually acultural 'dictation' notion of inspiration is adopted, often with the rider that the original documents were faultless. I find little value with this approach on several grounds, and that even f it were true, today we don't have those documents anyway. That leaves us with scriptures that are somewhat 'porous'. A more robust concept of inspiration doe snot have that problem.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
I am really liking this thread. Hedricks I appreciate it every time you contribute to a thread - thank you for your efforts.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
One word in a dictionary usually has several definitions. That illustrates what could a "literal" reading mean.
With that remark, yes, every word in the Bible should be read literally.
For example the "day" in Gen 1. It could have several meanings. Only one of them is 24 hours "on the earth". (think about Mars or moon, the earth's day no longer applied there)
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Gen 1 is absolutely historical, every word of it.
It is brilliant. No human being can write (even imagine) the message.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Genesis speaks of a six day creation followed by a day of rest. This is not allegory or theological insinuation, it's the word of God buoyed by the Fourth Commandment which was written in stone by God Himself. It you pick and choose which portions of the bible you want to believe relative to your thoughts about science, what other miracles do you choose to disbelieve? The flood, perhaps; one of the most significant occurrences in the Bible? The whole notion of demonic possession which happened before and after the life of Jesus? The existence of angels and demons?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
