Question for non-literalists

[Deamiter]

I was hoping that Deamiter was going to answer this question, but it appears he won't.

No I don't think the Bible has errors, it is inerrant.

The Bible is not inerrant. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant (again, unlike the Koran).

Some contradictions:

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

and

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

and

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..."

1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

and the infamous math problem:

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

(this is an impossible shape to construct -- try it if you like).

 

[vossler]

The Bible is not inerrant.

If it isn't innerrant then what parts are not in error and how do you know? How can you be sure?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If it isn't innerrant then what parts are not in error and how do you know? How can you be sure?

you do not have to have an inerrant Scripture, in terms of science, math etc in order to have an infallible one.
Infallible refers to the idea that it will not fail to give the right answers to religious and theological questions.

There are a bunch of ideas that are actually rather confused and messed up in the fundamentalist churches. The big idea is the reliability, inspiration and therefore the authority of Scripture. but because of the battles for the last 150 years or so, with higher criticism, evolutionary science, and theological liberalism; the fundamentalist churches have conflated a few terms:

inerrant, infallible, reliable, authoritative, inspired, trustworthy, true, literal, factual, historical

and it will take careful study, both historical and theological to begin to unwind and separate them. something fundamentalist churches seem unlikely to do.

but arguing slippery slope politics will not help achieve some clarity on the problems.

 

[vossler]

you do not have to have an inerrant Scripture, in terms of science, math etc in order to have an infallible one.
Infallible refers to the idea that it will not fail to give the right answers to religious and theological questions.

Inerrancy means without mistake. So if it is errant I'm asking how do you know what is wrong and what isn't?

Even if you go just by infallible you're still left with the same question. What parts are fallible and what parts aren't. How do you know the difference?

 

[laptoppop]

The Bible is not inerrant. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant (again, unlike the Koran).

Some contradictions:

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

and

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

and

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..."

1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

and the infamous math problem:

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

(this is an impossible shape to construct -- try it if you like).

And this is why we talk about the Bible being inerrant in the original autographs. Yes, there are a few very minor transmission errors -- although amazingly few considering the length of time and amount of text. Each of your examples has been answered many times and a simple Google search turns up the explanation -- but I suspect you know that already. In your first example, the age is obviously 22 because in close proximity to the 42 age Ahaziah's father is said twice to be 40 years old when Ahaziah died. Copiest error - no big thing at all.

In terms of the infamous Pi argument - we went around about that one a while back: http://www.christianforums.com/t3259383
Bottom line - there are two possible explanations, one which resolves it down to a couple of inches, the other which resolves it down to 15 thousandths of an inch.

etc. etc.

 

[Assyrian]

Or Space Time was distorted in the temple...

 

[shernren]

And this is why we talk about the Bible being inerrant in the original autographs. Yes, there are a few very minor transmission errors -- although amazingly few considering the length of time and amount of text. Each of your examples has been answered many times and a simple Google search turns up the explanation -- but I suspect you know that already. In your first example, the age is obviously 22 because in close proximity to the 42 age Ahaziah's father is said twice to be 40 years old when Ahaziah died. Copiest error - no big thing at all.

In terms of the infamous Pi argument - we went around about that one a while back: http://www.christianforums.com/t3259383
Bottom line - there are two possible explanations, one which resolves it down to a couple of inches, the other which resolves it down to 15 thousandths of an inch.

etc. etc.

How come an inerrant Bible can have copyist errors? How are we going to know what in the Bible is a copyist error and what isn't? Shock! Horror! My faith is falling apart!

 

[laptoppop]

How come an inerrant Bible can have copyist errors? How are we going to know what in the Bible is a copyist error and what isn't? Shock! Horror! My faith is falling apart!

:::: thwap ::::: <grin>
Inerrant in the original autographs.
(and actually this ties in - the various repeats in Scripture help us to gain understanding even of minor copyist errors)

 

[shernren]

:::: thwap ::::: <grin>
Inerrant in the original autographs.
(and actually this ties in - the various repeats in Scripture help us to gain understanding even of minor copyist errors)

And I'm assuming that you have the original autographs? Or know where to read them?

 

[Mallon]

:::: thwap ::::: <grin>
Inerrant in the original autographs.
(and actually this ties in - the various repeats in Scripture help us to gain understanding even of minor copyist errors)

I'm with shernren. What does that even mean? How can you tell that the Bible was inerrant in the original autographs? If the stories of the Bible were circulating by word of mouth before they were put to papyrus, did the authors correct for inerrancy at the time of writing?

I fail to understand why God wouldn't be able to communicate His truth to us through our own errant understanding of things. We know from Jesus' own existence that God gets down on His knees to talk to us. Why should God have had to have granted the authors of the Scriptures superhuman fore- or hindsight? Why does divinely inspired = inerrant?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Inerrancy means without mistake. So if it is errant I'm asking how do you know what is wrong and what isn't?

Even if you go just by infallible you're still left with the same question. What parts are fallible and what parts aren't. How do you know the difference?

Who said the historical inaccuracies were mistakes?

It seems to me that many of them add to the stories and emphasize the spiritual meanings. In a book whose intent is to send a spiritual message, these &#8220;mistakes&#8221; as you call them seem to be anything but mistakes.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Who said the historical inaccuracies were mistakes?

It seems to me that many of them add to the stories and emphasize the spiritual meanings. In a book whose intent is to send a spiritual message, these &#8220;mistakes&#8221; as you call them seem to be anything but mistakes.

Indeed- but if you are claiming that the Bible is completely correct by modern standards, any factual error is a problem.

If it isn't innerrant then what parts are not in error and how do you know? How can you be sure?

You can't. Did someone promise you that faith was going to be easy?

 

[vossler]

Who said the historical inaccuracies were mistakes?

If I told you that the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed under 1785, would you not think I was mistaken?

It seems to me that many of them add to the stories and emphasize the spiritual meanings. In a book whose intent is to send a spiritual message, these “mistakes” as you call them seem to be anything but mistakes.

Well, that's easy to say in a forum like this without specific examples. So let's use one as a means of demonstration. Let's say I believe it was historically inaccurate that Jesus actually died, that I believe he swooned his death because a body was never recovered nor did anyone witness the stone being moved. Such a claim would have dramatic consequences to any spiritual meanings that the Bible is presenting, wouldn't you say?

 

[Assyrian]

Sure, because even Paul says that if the resurrection didn't happen, our faith is foolish. But no one said that about a six day creation.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If I told you that the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed under 1785, would you not think I was mistaken?

That would depend on what your intentions were in saying it. If you intended it as a literal fact then maybe, if you did not intend it as a literal fact but to make a point, then no, you would not be mistaken in saying it, you would just not be using a literal frame of reference.

Well, that's easy to say in a forum like this without specific examples. So let's use one as a means of demonstration. Let's say I believe it was historically inaccurate that Jesus actually died, that I believe he swooned his death because a body was never recovered nor did anyone witness the stone being moved. Such a claim would have dramatic consequences to any spiritual meanings that the Bible is presenting, wouldn't you say?

I would ask for evidence of your theory and clarification of what you meant by it.

The death and resurrection of Christ is a fundamental of Christianity, how many people in an army, if a snake was a snake, if a donkey talked, if a bush really was burning, if Adam was real, if six days were literal, if the Bible is literal, if the Bible is inerrant, are all not fundamental tenants of Christianity.

 

[vossler]

That would depend on what your intentions were in saying it. If you intended it as a literal fact then maybe, if you did not intend it as a literal fact but to make a point, then no, you would not be mistaken in saying it, you would just not be using a literal frame of reference.

My intentions are to dispute what written history said because I believe it to be a fact, not just some random statement in order to make a different point.

I would ask for evidence of your theory and clarification of what you meant by it.

There's all sorts of 'evidence' that people have used to promote this theory and each person who uses it probably has a different intent.

The death and resurrection of Christ is a fundamental of Christianity, how many people in an army, if a snake was a snake, if a donkey talked, if a bush really was burning, if Adam was real, if six days were literal, if the Bible is literal, if the Bible is inerrant, are all not fundamental tenants of Christianity.

Understand you fully here, I'm just asking the question where do you draw the line, what is errant and what isn't and who decides?

 

[vossler]

Sure, because even Paul says that if the resurrection didn't happen, our faith is foolish. But no one said that about a six day creation.

Maybe not, but that's probably more because no one, at least not a known man of God, even thought it either.

 

[Athene]

You can't. Did someone promise you that faith was going to be easy?

 

[Assyrian]

Maybe not, but that's probably more because no one, at least not a known man of God, even thought it either.

But the NT wasn't written to 'men of God' it was written to young churches who were really just beginning to learn. There were people from a Jewish background, Gentile God fearers who had learned the OT in the Synagogues, and converted Pagans. The Pagans would have come with all sorts of cosmogonies from Pagan philosophy and religion. The Jews and God fearers would have read Genesis, but many would have interpreted the way the first century Jews Philo and Josephus did, allegorically, or that Moses was writing 'philosphically'.

All that Paul thought important, which he repeated again and again, was that God had created everything, seen and unseen, through Christ.

 

[vossler]

But the NT wasn't written to 'men of God' it was written to young churches who were really just beginning to learn. There were people from a Jewish background, Gentile God fearers who had learned the OT in the Synagogues, and converted Pagans. The Pagans would have come with all sorts of cosmogonies from Pagan philosophy and religion. The Jews and God fearers would have read Genesis, but many would have interpreted the way the first century Jews Philo and Josephus did, allegorically, or that Moses was writing 'philosphically'.

No disagreement here, except that they read it allegorically. Sure there were converted Pagans amongst the believers but they weren't the ones who were writing Scripture. So even if he was exposed to the idea, he probably saw it as unimportant.

All that Paul thought important, which he repeated again and again, was that God had created everything, seen and unseen, through Christ.