Why do we have to believe all 66 books are inerrant?

[bsenka]

Hi all, I'm very new to this forum. I did try to read through as many of the threads as possible before posting, but there's so much here, and much of the discussion goes off on different tangents. So please forgive me if what I ask has been discussed ad nauseum.

the question: Why do we have to believe all 66 books are inerrant? arises mainly out of my struggles to read and study the Bible. Basically speaking, I profess to believe that the whole Bible is the whole truth, but the reality is I do not. I believe nearly all of it, except for the first 10 chapters or so of Genesis.

I simply cannot even read Genesis. It is filled with problematic scenarios that no one has ever been able to explain to me in a way that even remotely makes sense. (where did Cain get his wife, why was he afraid of other people killing him, did fish die in the flood, did Noah really have multiples of EVERY living creature, etc, etc,)

Whenever I've tried to study Genesis, it has killed my joy, and snuffed out my faith. The end result is usually a long extended backslidden stretch. This time around, I have decided to abandon the "full inerrant" policy, and just accept that I do not believe Genesis, but I do believe the rest.

Here's the thing: Just because the Council of Trent says the 66 are the Canon, why do we accept that? Nowhere in the Bible itself does it specify which scriptures are Divine truth and which are not. This was a decision by men. There's no scriptural reason that I have to abide by the Council of Trent, is there?

 

[Jesusong]

Hi bsenka,
In Hebrews 11:1 the bible states:
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see".

And also in verse 6 we read:
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him".

We are not going to understand everything we read in the bible. In fact the entire book of Hebrews talks about the faith of those who didn't understand everything they were doing, but they did it anyway. The questions you have about some situations in Genesis or any other book for that matter is normal and healthy. Some answers require lots of research, others its a matter of just sitting down and slowly looking at the text and getting the info from exactly what it says without adding in assumptions. In others cases you may have to assume the obvious and then research why the obvious assumptions were ok back then but not today.

In other words, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth". - 2Tim 2:15

The rewards are great if you put the time and effort into it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

.

I simply cannot even read Genesis. It is filled with problematic scenarios that no one has ever been able to explain to me in a way that even remotely makes sense. (where did Cain get his wife, why was he afraid of other people killing him, did fish die in the flood, did Noah really have multiples of EVERY living creature, etc, etc,)

Whenever I've tried to study Genesis, it has killed my joy, and snuffed out my faith. The end result is usually a long extended backslidden stretch. This time around, I have decided to abandon the "full inerrant" policy, and just accept that I do not believe Genesis, but I do believe the rest.

Same here. However, I think you make a mistake by equating inerrancy with "believing X". I believe Genesis, but I do not think it is inerrant or literal, for reasons you outline.

Here's the thing: Just because the Council of Trent says the 66 are the Canon, why do we accept that? Nowhere in the Bible itself does it specify which scriptures are Divine truth and which are not. This was a decision by men. There's no scriptural reason that I have to abide by the Council of Trent, is there?

This is one of the problems with the Protestant sola scriptura position - there's nowhere in the Bible that actually says what the Bible is. For that, you need tradition. The Bible is part of the Tradition, and the Tradition says what the Bible is. But because the 66 books are Scripture, does not mean that they are inerrant. Just true.

Ultimately, my answer to your question is "No. In fact, we don't have to believe that any of the books are inerrant"

 

[Philip]

Why do we have to believe all 66 books are inerrant?

Only 66? I think you are missing some.

Basically speaking, I profess to believe that the whole Bible is the whole truth, but the reality is I do not. I believe nearly all of it, except for the first 10 chapters or so of Genesis.

If you are having trouble with these texts, then perhaps your are interpreting them incorrectly.

I simply cannot even read Genesis. It is filled with problematic scenarios that no one has ever been able to explain to me in a way that even remotely makes sense. (where did Cain get his wife, why was he afraid of other people killing him, did fish die in the flood, did Noah really have multiples of EVERY living creature, etc, etc,)

Have you tried reading Genesis in an allegorical manner?

This time around, I have decided to abandon the "full inerrant" policy, and just accept that I do not believe Genesis, but I do believe the rest.

Scriptures' inerrency refers to role as a record of God's revelation to man. Inerrant does not mean literal.

Here's the thing: Just because the Council of Trent says the 66 are the Canon, why do we accept that?

Trent names more than 66 books. Further, the Canon was established well before Trent.

Nowhere in the Bible itself does it specify which scriptures are Divine truth and which are not.

Correct. However, God's revelation to man does not end with the Scriptures. The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize what is inspired and what is not.

This was a decision by men.

Inspired men.

There's no scriptural reason that I have to abide by the Council of Trent, is there?

The Council of Trent is not discussed in Scripture. However, there is plenty of Scriptural reason to follow the teachings of the Church.

 

[bsenka]

Philip, I assume you are Catholic?

Rather than argue over how many books there are, I just want to point out that this potential disagreement only further illustrates my point. How can we really know if the "whole bible" is all divinely inspired? We don't know if things are missing, we don't know if things are erroneously included. "inspired men" differ over whether the apocrypha belongs. Heck, fron translation to translation, we differ over whether certain verses even belong!

They can't all be right, someone is wrong. Couldn't they be wrong about Genesis too?

 

[Philip]

Philip, I assume you are Catholic?

You assume incorrectly.

Rather than argue over how many books there are, I just want to point out that this potential disagreement only further illustrates my point. How can we really know if the "whole bible" is all divinely inspired?

Because the Church, the Pillar and Support of the Truth, believes it is. Christ established His Church to preserve His treachings.

We don't know if things are missing, we don't know if things are erroneously included.

Because the gates of Hell will not prevail. BTW, the establishment of the Canon did not state that it included all of God's revelation to us. Rather, it established a core portion of that revelation.

"inspired men" differ over whether the apocrypha belongs. Heck, fron translation to translation, we differ over whether certain verses even belong!

Individual men differ. The Church does not. The Holy Spirit inspires some men to write. He then guides the Church to know what is inspired and what is not.

 

[straightforward]

Simple...because once you read it in that light there is no denying that everything makes sense in a way like nothing has ever made sense before. Try it...don't just do the bit's and pieces routine...try reading the whole way through having faith and believing. See how the Old Testament ties in to the New and how God has truely spoken to this world through all of these books. Then you will see the inerancy of all 66 books. Until you see the entire thread you don't really see how they all tie together and what ties them together is God.

 

[bsenka]

Philip,

At first I was confused as to why you are being so confrontational, then I realized my faux pas. Trent WAS a Catholic Council, and did include the Apocrypha! (As do the Anglicans and many Orthodox Churches.)

Nevertheless, to argue the point of whether the Apocrypha really belongs in the Bible only solidifies my initial problem: Even here we can't agree on what constitutes "THE" Bible!!!

Let me be clear, I'm not opposed to anything that I don't understand. Creation, garden of Eden, Great flood, miracles, healing, immaculate conception, resurrection, assention, and so on, I have no trouble with. I believe GOD can and does do anything he wishes, and has power none of us could ever comprehend. I get that, and I fully believe it.

Where Genesis troubles me, is when it says things that don't make sense.

One example: Cain is afraid to be cast out because whomever might find him would kill him. Small problem, except for his immediate family, no one else existed!! And yet, despite this, he also managed to find a wife?

People have tried to try to tell me that he married his sister, but the text does not say that, he's afraid of his family, and god specifically forbids incest anyway.

I honestly have prayed over these problems, have studied hard, have brought it up with several pastors, and the only part I can't get straight is Genesis chapters 1 through 9.

 

[Philip]

I honestly have prayed over these problems, have studied hard, have brought it up with several pastors, and the only part I can't get straight is Genesis chapters 1 through 9.

Read these chapters as parables, not literal history. The purpose of the creation story is to explain our relationship with God. We are the center of His creation, but we messed it up. Still, He promised to redeem us. The creation story is not meant as history or science. Not accepting it as literal is nothing new. For at least 1500 years, since Blessed Augustine, some Christians have understood the creation story to be allegorical.

 

[Reader Nilus]

"For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible."
Professor John Romanides of the University of Thessaloniki

Professor Romanides pretty clearly gives the Orthodox view of the Bible. The Orthodox accept 80 books as Scripture not 66.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Reader Nilus]

Philip,

At first I was confused as to why you are being so confrontational, then I realized my faux pas. Trent WAS a Catholic Council, and did include the Apocrypha! (As do the Anglicans and many Orthodox Churches.)

Nevertheless, to argue the point of whether the Apocrypha really belongs in the Bible only solidifies my initial problem: Even here we can't agree on what constitutes "THE" Bible!!!

Let me be clear, I'm not opposed to anything that I don't understand. Creation, garden of Eden, Great flood, miracles, healing, immaculate conception, resurrection, assention, and so on, I have no trouble with. I believe GOD can and does do anything he wishes, and has power none of us could ever comprehend. I get that, and I fully believe it.

Where Genesis troubles me, is when it says things that don't make sense.

One example: Cain is afraid to be cast out because whomever might find him would kill him. Small problem, except for his immediate family, no one else existed!! And yet, despite this, he also managed to find a wife?

People have tried to try to tell me that he married his sister, but the text does not say that, he's afraid of his family, and god specifically forbids incest anyway.

I honestly have prayed over these problems, have studied hard, have brought it up with several pastors, and the only part I can't get straight is Genesis chapters 1 through 9.

If you can find it How the World Began: Man in the First Chapters of the Bible[font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1]by Helmut Thielicke is a great book. It is a series of sermons that Thielicke preached on the first chapters of Genesis to overflowing crowds in Hamburg Germany.[/size][/font]
Jeff the Finn

 

[Jesusong]

One example: Cain is afraid to be cast out because whomever might find him would kill him. Small problem, except for his immediate family, no one else existed!! And yet, despite this, he also managed to find a wife?

People have tried to try to tell me that he married his sister, but the text does not say that, he's afraid of his family, and god specifically forbids incest anyway.

The example above shouldn't be a problem at all. First, we don't know how much time passed before Cain killed Abel. Second, so what if it was his immediate family he was afraid of. He was still afraid, and wanted assurance from God that no harm would come to him for his actions. Third, He had to have married his sister, there was no other way around that. Incest wasn't forbidden till the Law arrived. Besides, mankind was genetically pure at that time, so no physical deformities would have showed up yet.

I find no problem letting the bible say what it says, and believing what it says.

 

[filosofer]

Read these chapters as parables, not literal history. The purpose of the creation story is to explain our relationship with God. We are the center of His creation, but we messed it up. Still, He promised to redeem us. The creation story is not meant as history or science. Not accepting it as literal is nothing new. For at least 1500 years, since Blessed Augustine, some Christians have understood the creation story to be allegorical.

There are a few problems with approaching Genesis this way. Yes, the topics you mention are indeed the center of the book. And the creation account is not meant to be a scientific presentation. However, it does not matter whether some in the church have interpreted Genesis/creation as allegory or parable. The real question is whether Genesis was written as allegory or parable. For that answer, the text has to supply the answer. Nothing in the text demands either, but rather historical presentation. In fact, the style of writing in Genesis 1-11 is the same as throughout Genesis, and all the historical books in the Old Testament.

Because it doesn't meet an expectation of contemporary historical precision does not negate the historicity of the events as presented in the text.

 

[Philip]

The real question is whether Genesis was written as allegory or parable. For that answer, the text has to supply the answer. Nothing in the text demands either, but rather historical presentation.

The style of the creation story, especially Genesis 1, suggests that it was written to directly refute the creation stories of the Babylonians.

The Babylonians held that the primal chaos, salt and fresh water, were the creator gods. The Biblical account immediately sets out to descrobe these false gods as just part of God's creation. The text does not demand that it be literal. Rather, it only requires that we see that everything was created by God and subject to Him. The rest of the historical section of the OT follows a similar partern, showing that all creation is subject to God.

 

[filosofer]

The text does not demand that it be literal. Rather, it only requires that we see that everything was created by God and subject to Him.

Ah, but what is the starting point? You claim that we understand the text as allegorical or parabolic unless something in the text demands that it be literal. But normal communication and interpretive practice is the exact opposite - the starting point is to accept the literal. That is, we take texts in the literal sense, unless the context demands a firguative sense, which then becomes the literal sense. (For a fuller explanation of this, see James Voelz' What Does This Mean? Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World). By turning it backward, we then can make texts say anything we want - which is ultimately what the allegorical approach allows, and even encourages. No longer are we concerned with what is written, but what we want it to say.

 

[Reader Nilus]

It seems Genesis gives such an indication, with Eve's naming of Seth. The very fact that is there rules out mulitudes of sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and indicates other people that were not descendants of Adam and Eve. Who lived in the city Cain built? The questions that are answered in Genesis is who and why, not how.
Jeff the Finn

 

[PreacherFergy]

It is quite foolish to not believe in Gen 1-9 literally. I've read through Genesis several times, and I have no problem whatsoever w/ any part of it. I believe the Bible, do you?

 

[Oblio]

For that answer, the text has to supply the answer.

Why ?

Because it doesn't meet an expectation of contemporary historical precision does not negate the historicity of the events as presented in the text.

Contemporary historical precision ?

Several members posting on this thread can hardly be considered contemporary in their Theological viewpoints.

It is quite foolish to not believe in Gen 1-9 literally. I've read through Genesis several times, and I have no problem whatsoever w/ any part of it. I believe the Bible, do you?

Philip, what fallacy is this that I have underlined ?

Why is it foolish ? I believe the Bible, not necessarily your personal interpretaion of it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Archeology and Biblical scholars such as Richard Friedman are making great strides in providing us with a fuller understanding of the books of the Bible. For example, in a book I am currently reading by Friedman, he puts forth the idea that the Bible from Genesis through to the court history of Kings was originally built around what he believes to be the first book of prose ever written. This prose would be what scholars refer to as "J".
The Bible undoubtedly contains history, but it is more than mere history. Reading any of its 66 (or 80) books and just looking at the most literal interpretation impedes the reader from making more than the most shallow interpretation of the fullness of scripture. Like any great work of literature, the Bible contains a great depth. To tap into this depth we must go beyond the surface of a completely literal interpretation and look for meaning in its great themes that have inspired our civilisation for the past three thousand years.

 

[Philip]

You claim that we understand the text as allegorical or parabolic unless something in the text demands that it be literal.

Incorrect. Rather, I claimed that the text of Genesis 1 demands an allegorical interpretation.