Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[Split Rock]

Creationists here all have one thing in common… they use “The Inerrant Word of God” as their sword and shield. Why is the earth not billions of years old? Why is common descent wrong? Why is Big Bang cosmology wrong? Because God says so. How could the stories in Genesis possibly be actual history? Because God says so. God is infallible, and The Bible is His Word. Man is fallible and God is not. If one accepts this argument at face value, it is hard to argue against.. isn’t it? But is this argument legitimate? No. Let’s look at why.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Bible is correct, when it claims its authors were inspired by God. Every word in The Bible was written by fallible human men. Not God. Not Jesus. Men. Even if inspired by God, the writing was carried out by Men. Many creationists believe that God somehow ensured that all of the fallible writers of the books chosen by fallible men to become canon were absolutely inerrant, or “God Breathed.” Some call this “Verbal Plenary Inspiration.” Unfortunately, no where in scripture is this type of inspiration claimed. It is simply an opinion of many creationists.

As if that was not detrimental enough for the inerrancy case, it gets worse. No where in scripture does it specifically say how old the earth or universe is, and no where does it say species or “kinds” do not change over time. Just as it does not say anything about the earth orbiting the sun, scripture says nothing about evolution. So, where does this Divine pronouncement against deep time and evolution come from? Interpretation. Fallible creationists interpret the Bible using their own assumptions, opinions, prejudices and agendas to come to their own conclusion about what scripture implies about subjects it does not specifically refer to. Worse, they interpret scripture as if it was written for 21st century Americans, instead of Bronze Age Hebrew goat-herders. They then call this interpretation “God’s Inerrant Word.” It is not. It is, in the end, their opinion, based on their own fallible interpretation of scripture.

Creationists are loathe to admit that what they claim as “God’s Word,” or “The Bible” is really nothing more than an opinion based on their interpretation of scripture. Why? Because a personal opinion based on fallible interpretation is not “inerrant.” Without Divine Inerrancy, the creationists have nothing to argue but their own opinion and speculation. In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.

And that is why creationism is not based on The Inerrant Word of God.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

. Fallible creationists interpret the Bible using their own assumptions, opinions, prejudices and agendas to come to their own conclusion about what scripture implies about subjects it does not specifically refer to.

so does everyone who wants to know more than they have the ability to know for sure.

The power of the spiritual truth of the bible creates hubris in the minds of men who are given to wandering from the path Jesus set out (love!) and go to silly places like I have and these 'creationists' have.

Creationists here all have one thing in common… they use “The Inerrant Word of God” as their sword and shield.

If you live your life by the teachings found in the bible you will find out exactly why these people find the bible to be so trust-worthy

Because God says so. God is infallible, and The Bible is His Word. Man is fallible and God is not. If one accepts this argument at face value, it is hard to argue against.. isn’t it? But is this argument legitimate?

Something that betters your life every day in every way is not an illegitimate in any way. But as you point out, people are often wrong about how to understand and implement this gift from God.

Many creationists believe that God somehow ensured that all of the fallible writers of the books chosen by fallible men to become canon were absolutely inerrant, or “God Breathed.” Some call this “Verbal Plenary Inspiration.” Unfortunately, no where in scripture is this type of inspiration claimed.

Actually, there is a verse that says that all scripture is good for learning and rebuke. This, of course, is within the spiritual context and you are right in pointing out this has nothing to do with the 'Greek' mind, for whom Jesus is foolishness.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Bible is correct, when it claims its authors were inspired by God. Every word in The Bible was written by fallible human men.

Profits of old where there to write down exactly what God wanted, limited knowledge of the writer is no limitation on the pure spiritual truth found in the bible.

Why is the earth not billions of years old? Why is common descent wrong? Why is Big Bang cosmology wrong? Because God says so. How could the stories in Genesis possibly be actual history?

The truth of Genesis is a spiritual truth that goes beyond empirical evidence. This means that both the creationist and the scientist can be right.

No where in scripture does it specifically say how old the earth or universe is, and no where does it say species or “kinds” do not change over time.

Both the age of the earth and species to species evolution are not addressed by the bible, true.

But the present 'world' IS addressed, through some time frames and some linage counting, as being about seven-thousand years old.

Modern history, that is the existence of humans as far as God views them as sentient, started about seven thousand years ago. Adam and Eve where in a spiritual place outside of 'death', a level of reality outside of empirical study. (the bible did NOT tell me that and I do NOT know this for sure, but it makes sense to me, given that we are talking about spiritual matters and levels of reality not related to science or empiricism)

Keep in mind that the word 'world' talks about a frame of reference, 'new world', 'old world' etc. The FACT is the earth at very least 3 billion years old.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi MagusAlbertus
Looks like we agree more than disagree.

Something that betters your life every day in every way is not an illegitimate in any way. But as you point out, people are often wrong about how to understand and implement this gift from God.

I am not arguing that the Bible is illegitimate...rather, it is being misinterpreted and misused for purposes it was never intended for. So, I agree with you.

Actually, there is a verse that says that all scripture is good for learning and rebuke. This, of course, is within the spiritual context and you are right in pointing out this has nothing to do with the 'Greek' mind, for whom Jesus is foolishness.

I am not claiming that Jesus is foolishness. I actually see him as an excellent role model. However, the assertion by scripture that it is good for "learning and rebuke," does not at all imply it is inerrant, or written as if by God's own hand.

Profits of old where there to write down exactly what God wanted, limited knowledge of the writer is no limitation on the pure spiritual truth found in the bible.

I am not arguing about spiritual truth. Rather I am arguing against using the Bible for natural truths that the writers were frankly ignorant of.

The truth of Genesis is a spiritual truth that goes beyond empirical evidence. This means that both the creationist and the scientist can be right.

Agreed.

Both the age of the earth and species to species evolution are not addressed by the bible, true.

But the present 'world' IS addressed, through some time frames and some linage counting, as being about seven-thousand years old.

Modern history, that is the existence of humans as far as God views them as sentient, started about seven thousand years ago. Adam and Eve where in a spiritual place outside of 'death', a level of reality outside of empirical study. (the bible did NOT tell me that and I do NOT know this for sure, but it makes sense to me, given that we are talking about spiritual matters and levels of reality not related to science or empiricism)

Keep in mind that the word 'world' talks about a frame of reference, 'new world', 'old world' etc. The FACT is the earth at very least 3 billion years old.

I have no problem with this argument. When Genesis says the entire "world" was flooded during the time of Noah, one can equally argue that the entire "world" was the world of the Hebrews and not the entire planet. While I am still skeptical about the Flood as an historical event, this interpretation is at least much more reasonable.

 

[Split Rock]

What does 'Spiritual matters' mean? what falls under the umbrella of 'Spiritual matters'? is 'Spiritual matters' another way of saying that all the impossible stuff mentioned in the bible is considered to be believable as long as it comes under the heading 'Spiritual matters'? is where the water for the flood came from, A&E or the parting of the Red sea made believable by saying we are talking about 'Spiritual matters'? if it is then I think you are being taken for fools.

I think what Magus is saying is that The Garden was not entirely in the physical world. Perhaps he can clarify that. For me, it is a story based on earlier stories originally written by the Summerians and Egyptians told to explain theological matters. Therefore, there is little point in trying to figure out where the Garden actually was and what it was like. However, as long as we agree the Garden did not exist in the physical world, or in the physical sense, I have no argument with this interpretation.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists here all have one thing in common… they use “The Inerrant Word of God” as their sword and shield. Why is the earth not billions of years old? Why is common descent wrong? Why is Big Bang cosmology wrong? Because God says so. How could the stories in Genesis possibly be actual history? Because God says so. God is infallible, and The Bible is His Word. Man is fallible and God is not. If one accepts this argument at face value, it is hard to argue against.. isn’t it? But is this argument legitimate? No. Let’s look at why.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Bible is correct, when it claims its authors were inspired by God. Every word in The Bible was written by fallible human men. Not God. Not Jesus. Men. Even if inspired by God, the writing was carried out by Men. Many creationists believe that God somehow ensured that all of the fallible writers of the books chosen by fallible men to become canon were absolutely inerrant, or “God Breathed.” Some call this “Verbal Plenary Inspiration.” Unfortunately, no where in scripture is this type of inspiration claimed. It is simply an opinion of many creationists.

As if that was not detrimental enough for the inerrancy case, it gets worse. No where in scripture does it specifically say how old the earth or universe is, and no where does it say species or “kinds” do not change over time. Just as it does not say anything about the earth orbiting the sun, scripture says nothing about evolution. So, where does this Divine pronouncement against an deep time and evolution come from? Interpretation. Fallible creationists interpret the Bible using their own assumptions, opinions, prejudices and agendas to come to their own conclusion about what scripture implies about subjects it does not specifically refer to. Worse, they interpret scripture as if it was written for 21st century Americans, instead of Bronze Age Hebrew goat-herders. They then call this interpretation “God’s Inerrant Word.” It is not. It is, in the end, their opinion, based on their own fallible interpretation of scripture.

Creationists are loathe to admit that what they claim as “God’s Word,” or “The Bible” is really nothing more than an opinion based on their interpretation of scripture. Why? Because a personal opinion based on fallible interpretation is not “inerrant.” Without Divine Inerrancy, the creationists have nothing to argue but their own opinion and speculation. In the end, creationists have no true divine legitimacy for their claims, even if one assumes that The Bible was divinely inspired.

And that is why creationism is not based on The Inerrant Word of God.

This type of introduction to the issue turned me off. You simply do not learn.

 

[Split Rock]

This type of introduction to the issue turned me off. You simply do not learn.

Thank you so much for the intellectually stimulating reply to my O.P.

Bye-Bye

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Split-Rock (like the name, by the way)

The only truth that a christian needs to accept is that Jesus died for our sins and that faith in him, hope in his resurrection and accepting God's love as exemplified by his life leads to eternal life.

I am glad we are not at odds and I am also glad you can see that full faith in Christ is not limited to those men who need to believe in the physical-historical truth of the bible. The truth is the bible tells us not to insult those who have to little faith to accept some spiritual truths, but rather must rely on legalisms.

I actually see him as an excellent role model. However, the assertion by scripture that it is good for "learning and rebuke," does not at all imply it is inerrant, or written as if by God's own hand.

Depends on what you mean by inerrant... did the transcribers have a period off here and not know exactly how big a pool was there? sure.

Did human interpretation hurt the spiritual truth of the bible, I have not found this to be the case and would therefor still call it inerrant.

When Genesis says the entire "world" was flooded during the time of Noah, one can equally argue that the entire "world" was the world of the Hebrews and not the entire planet. While I am still skeptical about the Flood as an historical event, this interpretation is at least much more reasonable.

I don't know who is and who is not a sentient human to God.. or when they got that way; but many disperate cultures have a 'mass extinction' story which is not proof of anything but an interesting thing to keep in mind.

I have concluded that apologetics for the creation of the earth, flood, the sun standing still and some guy being swallowed by a big-fish is silly. The point of the inclusion of these thigns is that they are outside of our provable world and we can accept them by faith... and guess what, neat secret, you will not be on jot less a follower of Christ if you fail to accept every one of those faith-based stories.

if it is then I think you are being taken for fools.

DING! 100% on Sr! we are, IN FACT, fools! (from your perspective)

To the empirical, fact only, no-faith-allowed, everything is observable mind YES we are FOOLS of the highest order.

Heretics, savages who don't know the glory of relying only on what can be uncovered through observation.

Oddly enough I, myself, am a Scientist and find there to be plenty of room in one man's mind for both that which he knows he can support through observation and that which he knows because God put it in his heart.

Of-course there is no doubt that the Holy-spirit moves in those who have accepted Christ in-order to help them contextualize the bible's teachings. Similarly there is no doubt that personal hubris leads many to call their intuition and selfish-desire 'the spirit'.

I think what Magus is saying is that The Garden was not entirely in the physical world. Perhaps he can clarify that. For me, it is a story based on earlier stories originally written by the Summerians and Egyptians told to explain theological matters. Therefore, there is little point in trying to figure out where the Garden actually was and what it was like. However, as long as we agree the Garden did not exist in the physical world, or in the physical sense, I have no argument with this interpretation.

I would say that it is not impossible that the garden existed as a physical reality somewhere around Iran. Only that there is strong empirical evidence to support the theory that this is not the case.

I would only say that because I am a statistician... I suppose if i were a mathematician or a logician I may be willing to give you a different interpretation.

Juvin needs a hug: I think we can all agree to that point.

 

[AV1611VET]

perhaps they think that 'thee and thou' somehow adds a little weight to the words?

Ya --- they clarify the person(s) being spoken to.

So what does this all mean? For one thing the KJV is in this point obviously superior to modern translations in that it preserves the distinction between the singular and plural pronouns. How else would we know that Satan desired to sift the apostles (plural) as wheat, rather than just Simon Peter. (Luke 22:31,32). How else would we know that when the Lord Jesus said to Nicodemus “Ye must be born again” He meant “you all” not just Nicodemus, unless we had a knowledge of the original Greek.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

And of course we are not able to do that with language today are we?

No, we are not --- not w/o further clarification --- such as 'you guys'.

Many times I have used 'you' in a post to a certain poster, and she has taken offense because she thinks I'm talking about her, personally.

I have no idea what's wrong with you but something is playing with your brain and it's not helping you any either, it's no friend of yours.

You crack me up ---

 

[theFijian]

At last someone who admits that their religion and their God exists only in their mind

So where do your thoughts and beliefs exist consol? On the evidence so far it seems to be your rear-end.

 

[Split Rock]

Ya --- they clarify the person(s) being spoken to.

SOURCE
[/SIZE]

I noticed you did not address the O.P. Does this mean you are going to stop claiming your interpretation of scripture equals "God's Word," or "The Bible?"

 

[Split Rock]

And of course we are not able to do that with language today are we? perhaps we should continue using 'thee and thou' what do you think?
AV1611VET you never cease to amaze me, you will use and say anything, (and I mean anything) if it helps you keep your head ticking over, is there any truth in your life? has any of it got any meaning? does all of it rely on lies to keep it functioning? it is my opinion that religion has nothing what so ever to do with what you believe, it's just a cover for something that goes much much deeper because no one but no one could believe the claptrap that you keep coming out with, not even creationists. I have no idea what's wrong with you but something is playing with your brain and it's not helping you any either, it's no friend of yours.

Please stop SPAMMING my thread. Thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I noticed you did not address the O.P.

Sorry.

Does this mean you are going to stop claiming your interpretation of scripture equals "God's Word," or "The Bible?"

Are you kidding me?

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Bible is correct, when it claims its authors were inspired by God. Every word in The Bible was written by fallible human men. Not God. Not Jesus. Men. Even if inspired by God, the writing was carried out by Men. Many creationists believe that God somehow ensured that all of the fallible writers of the books chosen by fallible men to become canon were absolutely inerrant, or “God Breathed.” Some call this “Verbal Plenary Inspiration.” Unfortunately, no where in scripture is this type of inspiration claimed. It is simply an opinion of many creationists.

Your word choices stand out like a sore thumb --- let's look at them:

1. 'fallible human men' vis-a-viz 'holy men of God'
2. 'somehow' could be left out to create the exact effect --- God ensured --- not, God somehow ensured
3. 'chosen by fallible men to become canon' again is misleading

In my opinion, you're watering down Basic Doctrine with words that make it look mundane --- not divine.

1. Yes, these men were fallible, but they were also above reproach in God's eyes.
2. Yes, God somehow ensured... but that ensurance wasn't explained by you until later, after the "damage" was done.
3. Yes, chosen by fallible men, but again, not just any 'fallible men'.

Had anything "gone wrong" --- God would not have preserved it.

Nature makes copying errors --- God doesn't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your word choices stand out like a sore thumb --- let's look at them:

1. 'fallible human men' vis-a-viz 'holy men of God'
2. 'somehow' could be left out to create the exact effect --- God ensured --- not, God somehow ensured
3. 'chosen by fallible men to become canon' again is misleading

1. The become infallible because you say they do?
2. "Somehow" does not baselessly assume that God did it.
3. because the Council of Nicea was infallible?

In my opinion, you're watering down Basic Doctrine with words that make it look mundane --- not divine.

"Basic Doctrine" is a mundane thing -- dress it up in divine robes and it remains mundane.

Yes, these men were fallible, but they were also above reproach in God's eyes.

Funny, God never said so.

Yes, God somehow ensured... but that ensurance wasn't explained by you until later, after the "damage" was done.

God's insurance didn't add up to much, did it?

Yes, chosen by fallible men, but again, not just any 'fallible men'.
Had anything "gone wrong" --- God would not have preserved it.

Assuming that the Bible in its current form is the one God wanted preserved -- completely baseless.

Nature makes copying errors --- God doesn't.

Apparantly God subcontracts out to people who do.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry.Are you kidding me?Your word choices stand out like a sore thumb --- let's look at them:

OK

1. 
   

   [*]'fallible human men' vis-a-viz 'holy men of God'

   How about "fallible holy men of God?"
   
   

   [*]'somehow' could be left out to create the exact effect --- God ensured --- not, God somehow ensured

   Then I suppose you can explain to us how God ensured this? If not, then "somehow" is quite appropriate.
   
   

   [*]'chosen by fallible men to become canon' again is misleading

   Why? Were they not fallible?
   

In my opinion, you're watering down Basic Doctrine with words that make it look mundane --- not divine.

Your opinion is noted. I have no problem with you stating your opinion, AVET... it is when you claim that your opinion is "The Bible" that I have concerns.

1. 
   

   [*]Yes, these men were fallible, but they were also above reproach in God's eyes.

   That's as may be, but they were still fallible.
   
   

   [*]Yes, God somehow ensured... but that ensurance wasn't explained by you until later, after the "damage" was done.

   Not sure what your point here is....
   
   

   [*]Yes, chosen by fallible men, but again, not just any 'fallible men'.

   Still fallible, though... correct?
   

Had anything "gone wrong" --- God would not have preserved it.

In your opinion?

Nature makes copying errors --- God doesn't.

But God didn't write any book of The Bible... did He?

AVET, I think it is you who is being "misleading." These men were fallible, yet you claim, acccording to your opinion, that God somehow (since you do not specify) ensured that what they wrote was perfect. Yet there is no Biblical support for this claim. Who then, is being misleading here?

Secondly, you ignored the second part of my argument. That is, even if we accept that The Bible was written perfectly, your interpretation of it is most certainly fallible.

 

[AV1611VET]

But God didn't write any book of The Bible... did He?

He is credited with writing it all --- as any amanuensis would testify.

Note the following letter:

Dear Mr Smith,

Please be advised of our schedule change for next week.

Sincerely,

Jose Rodriquez

JR:ss

This letter is from whom, and what are those letters: 'ss'?

 

[Split Rock]

He is credited with writing it all --- as any amanuensis would testify.

Note the following letter:This letter is from whom, and what are those letters: 'ss'?

Once again, you are simply asserting that The Bible was written this way. Yet there is no direct support for this in The Bible. Is there?

 

[Nathan Poe]

He is credited with writing it all --- as any amanuensis would testify.

Christopher Columbus is credited with discovering America -- Shows what "being credited" is worth.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Note the following letter:This letter is from whom, and what are those letters: 'ss'?

Dear Mr. AV1611VET;

It is with great concern that I must make Myself known to you in order to correct you on your appaling "basic" theology.

The Bible was not written by Me. It was written by men, fallible men, at that, who tried their best to express their experience of Me in terms that could be understood to the people they were trying to express it to.

As such, there are parts of the Bible which are, to a reader in this day and age, allegorical, poetic, and mythological. This is according to My design. I never planned for people to take the Bible as literal then, let alone now. I had planned for people to understand that the Bible is historical, but not necessarily history. With a few exceptions (such as yourself), the plan has succeeded.

Please re-examine your own "basic theology" and discern how much of it is simple vanity -- the refusal of a fallible man to recognize other fallible men. The authors I originally chose for the Bible made this same mistake --- that's the price of Free Will -- but I sincerely hope you can learn from their errors, and mature in your faith beyond the mere pages of their Bible.

While you're at it, pay more attention to that "Nathan Poe" chap; he seems to know what he's talking about.

Warmest Personal Regards,

God.

G:np

 

[AV1611VET]

Dear Mr. AV1611VET;

<snip>