Philosophy & Religion Thread

[GratefulPoke]

Ah, the dictionary definition fallacy. When we are using it in this context, "inerrancy" is a doctrine, not merely a word that means "containing no errors". A doctrine is much more complex than the dictionary definition of the word.

Doctrinal inerrancy states that "the bible does not err", which conveys the same meaning we are already debating. Doctrine or not, it has the exact same burden of proof to bear.

If the bible is inerrant, than God condones, even orders genocide as long as it is against the "right" people group.

 

[RxCowboy]

Doctrinal inerrancy states that "the bible does not err", which conveys the same meaning we are already debating. Doctrine or not, it has the exact same burden of proof to bear.

If the bible is inerrant, than God condones, even orders genocide as long as it is against the "right" people group.

If you want to give the cartoon version of inerrancy, sure, that's it. We can put that in first grade work books for home schooled kids. But it is much more complex than that, and you know it.

Why are you arguing this? What's your point?

 

[GratefulPoke]

If you want to give the cartoon version of inerrancy, sure, that's it. We can put that in first grade work books for home schooled kids. But it is much more complex than that, and you know it.

Why are you arguing this? What's your point?

If you think the more complex version has a different burden of proof, please share the more complex versions and make that case.

In my opinion, biblical inerrancy is one of the less serious claims that some Christians make. Unlike the majority of claims that Christianity has that are not falsifiable, this one is falsifiable and we can also demonstrate it to be false.

All the more "complex" variations of the doctrine try to make this claim not falsifiable to sheild it from scrutiny. Which is a problem because words have meaning and the use of the word "inerrancy/does not err/etc" in these more "complex" teachings ends up meaning something other than the meaning of that word. Why not use another word then?

I am debating this because I dont think it is true in any sense of the word. The idea of biblical inerrancy, like dispensationalism, is an 19th century invention. It causes great harm because evangelicalism would not be what it is today without this teaching. It instructs people to not think critically about the bible and to dismiss obvious textual and moral shortcomings in it by simply claiming it to be without err.

Instead, the bible being "divinely inspired" makes theological sense in a Christian context, for the following reasons:
1) It is a claim it makes of itself;
2) It was the only understanding of the text throughout church history until relatively recently and still is the most common view held today;
3) It allows the reader to disregard portions of the text that are not "true" in any sense of the word or are actively harmful;
4) It is more intellectually honest;
5) It is less prone to be a permission structure to mistreat or repress non christians or people of other faiths in a pluralistic society.

 

[RxCowboy]

If you think the more complex version has a different burden of proof, please share the more complex versions and make that case.

In my opinion, biblical inerrancy is one of the less serious claims that some Christians make. Unlike the majority of claims that Christianity has that are not falsifiable, this one is falsifiable and we can also demonstrate it to be false.

All the more "complex" variations of the doctrine try to make this claim not falsifiable to sheild it from scrutiny. Which is a problem because words have meaning and the use of the word "inerrancy/does not err/etc" in these more "complex" teachings ends up meaning something other than the meaning of that word. Why not use another word then?

I am debating this because I dont think it is true in any sense of the word. The idea of biblical inerrancy, like dispensationalism, is an 19th century invention. It causes great harm because evangelicalism would not be what it is today without this teaching. It instructs people to not think critically about the bible and to dismiss obvious textual and moral shortcomings in it by simply claiming it to be without err.

Instead, the bible being "divinely inspired" makes theological sense in a Christian context, for the following reasons:
1) It is a claim it makes of itself;
2) It was the only understanding of the text throughout church history until relatively recently and still is the most common view held today;
3) It allows the reader to disregard portions of the text that are not "true" in any sense of the word or are actively harmful;
4) It is more intellectually honest;
5) It is less prone to be a permission structure to mistreat or repress non christians or people of other faiths in a pluralistic society.

I stated my belief and how my personal beliefs differ from the standard doctrine. But I have not and am not trying to convince anyone or change their views, including yours. Therefore, there is no burden of proof. I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. It appears that you are and I am a little curious as to why.

You don’t like it. I get it. I’m convinced that you don’t. I don’t need anymore convincing of that. Let us discuss and not be contentious here.

 

[RxCowboy]

It instructs people to not think critically about the bible and to dismiss obvious textual and moral shortcomings in it by simply claiming it to be without err.

Do you think I have not thought critically about the Bible?

 

[steross]

This is an open and free discussion. You won't offend me. I want to try to answer your questions.

Seems to me that you detailed many things in those two posts, from how you felt others had harmed you to me getting busted in the nose by an ice ball that comes from the sky for some reason.

And nobody got a pass. If I don't want to get hit in the nose, I should learn to swing better. I need to understand that huge ice balls from the sky are random events. Your ex did not get a pass, your former church did not get a pass, you didn't even give yourself a pass.

But your God got all the passes. He was not at fault for a creation that has huge ice balls hurtling at the soft-bodied inhabitants he also created. He was not at fault for only giving instructions in a book written in a faraway place thousands of years ago that we are supposed to apply to a very different modern world. He was not at fault for the actions of the initial church and how they treated you. But, he did get credit for a word choice of the pastor of the second church, which you are strongly implying that you see as some type of sign from God, not a random word choice of a pastor trying to not sound monotonous.

The end of this story could just as easily have been that you stayed with the initial church. After they said they dropped the ball, you agreed and said there are things you could have done better also and they comforted you. Then your sign could be that in all the years at this church, you had never seen these leaders so apologetic but they acted differently for this situation. Didn't happen, but could have, and also would be seen as the sign.

I am truly sorry you are going through this, and I hope my words do not hurt you more. But it all seems very worldly. People can be cruel even when they think they aren't. Large hail does occur in parts of the earth due to the climatology. And seemingly unlikely random events, good and bad, are part of our existence here. It is our nature to try to find some order or rationale to them. Like the athlete thanking God for victories but never blaming God for the losses, it seems that people tend to be selective in what they attribute to God, then claim their own selectivity as his actions.

 

[GratefulPoke]

I stated my belief and how my personal beliefs differ from the standard doctrine. But I have not and am not trying to convince anyone or change their views, including yours. Therefore, there is no burden of proof. I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. It appears that you are and I am a little curious as to why.

You don’t like it. I get it. I’m convinced that you don’t. I don’t need anymore convincing of that. Let us discuss and not be contentious here.

It is a bit odd to:

1) make a truth claim
2) push back on a counter argument multiple times
3) decline to provide evidence or make a case when asked for it
4) characterize the counter argument as juvenile or a cartoon understanding of the concept without elaboration
5) accuse the other party of being contentious
6) claim to want to continue the discussion

Which is it? It seems to me like you want unsubstantiated claims to be accepted as fact and not to discuss them further. Which is your choice, but seems out of place in a thread designed for that sort of dialogue.

The person making a truth claim always has the burden of proof. It doesnt matter what the claim is.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Talarico talking point.

In Human Terms the only way we can describe God's gender is "Non-Binary"

I thought on this and read some, and I'm pretty sure that is the best definition Humans have that would fit what we know about God as the Bible specifically refers to god in both feminine and masculine ways

 

[RxCowboy]

Marie Bernard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prior to arriving at NIH in 2008, Bernard served as Donald W. Reynolds Chair in Geriatric Medicine and founding chairperson of the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, and Associate Chief of Staff for Geriatrics and Extended Care at the Oklahoma City Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Dr. Bernard was one of my attending physicians when I was on medicine rotation as a Pharm.d. student. She has been a great influence on my career. She used to ask us, the team, “if this were your grandmother what would you want done?” To me that is incredibly clarifying. It’s also the essence of the Golden Rule. I’ve asked students that question myself many many times over the years when faced with a decision. I try to practice that way here at the VA, if this patient were my brother how would I want him to be treated?

She has her own wiki page now. She is an amazing and brilliant person.

 

[RxCowboy]

It is a bit odd to:

1) make a truth claim
2) push back on a counter argument multiple times
3) decline to provide evidence or make a case when asked for it
4) characterize the counter argument as juvenile or a cartoon understanding of the concept without elaboration
5) accuse the other party of being contentious
6) claim to want to continue the discussion

Which is it? It seems to me like you want unsubstantiated claims to be accepted as fact and not to discuss them further. Which is your choice, but seems out of place in a thread designed for that sort of dialogue.

The person making a truth claim always has the burden of proof. It doesnt matter what the claim is.

I do not care if anyone else accepts inerrancy as fact or not and have never made such a claim. A question was asked about inerrancy and I said that I accepted it with the qualifications that I gave.

This looks like an exit point for me. I’ll leave you to it.

 

[TheMonkey]

If you think the more complex version has a different burden of proof, please share the more complex versions and make that case.

In my opinion, biblical inerrancy is one of the less serious claims that some Christians make. Unlike the majority of claims that Christianity has that are not falsifiable, this one is falsifiable and we can also demonstrate it to be false.

All the more "complex" variations of the doctrine try to make this claim not falsifiable to sheild it from scrutiny. Which is a problem because words have meaning and the use of the word "inerrancy/does not err/etc" in these more "complex" teachings ends up meaning something other than the meaning of that word. Why not use another word then?

I am debating this because I dont think it is true in any sense of the word. The idea of biblical inerrancy, like dispensationalism, is an 19th century invention. It causes great harm because evangelicalism would not be what it is today without this teaching. It instructs people to not think critically about the bible and to dismiss obvious textual and moral shortcomings in it by simply claiming it to be without err.

Imstead, the bible being "divinely inspired" makes theological sense in a Christian context, for the following reasons:
1) It is a claim it makes of itself;
2) It was the only understanding of the text throughout church history until relatively recently and still is the most common view held today;
3) It allows the reader to disregard portions of the text that are not "true" in any sense of the word or are actively harmful;
4) It is more intellectually honest;
5) It is less prone to be a permission structure to mistreat or repress non christians or people of other faiths in a pluralistic society.

Thank you for articulating why this bothers me so much. Also, the debate over defining inerrancy illustrates another point. If you search online for local churches and look at their websites, I would wager every evangelical church has a statement of belief that includes their stance that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.

Yet here we are, several thoughtful people in the same thread using the same word but meaning very different things by it, and one of us explicitly saying, “I accept inerrancy, but I’m not going to explain or defend what that actually entails.”

For me, that connects directly to dispensationalism and to a certain style of fundamentalist evangelicalism more broadly. You get a very rigid, literal framework, often developed in the 19th–20th century, treated as if it were simply “what the Bible teaches,” and then that framework is wrapped in the language of “infallible and inerrant.”

Once that happens, questioning the framework, its timelines, or its moral implications isn’t just disagreeing with an interpretation; it’s treated as if you’re rebelling against God himself. At the same time, those same communities usually show very little tolerance for moral or theological views outside their system, while expecting the rest of us to treat their system as uniquely authoritative precisely because they claim that special access to infallibility and inerrancy.

I’m much closer to where you land on this: “divinely inspired” seems both more historically rooted and more honest about what we actually have in front of us—a collection of texts that bear witness to people wrestling with God over centuries, with real beauty and real problems in them.

That kind of framing leaves room to admit where we’ve constructed elaborate systems (including dispensational timelines) that may say more about our own anxieties and cultural assumptions than about God, without having to pretend that the word “inerrant” guarantees the whole worldview by default.

 

[LaB_OkState]

I’m much closer to where you land on this: “divinely inspired” seems both more historically rooted and more honest about what we actually have in front of us—a collection of texts that bear witness to people wrestling with God over centuries, with real beauty and real problems in them.

I really appreciate how you described the Bible as a collection of texts where people are 'wrestling with God.' I think we both agree that the human element of the Bible is vibrant and real.

My genuine question for you and @GratefulPoke, as I try to understand your perspective, is about the nature of God's role in that 'wrestling.' If we believe God is perfect and the source of all Truth, how do we determine where the 'divine inspiration' ends and the 'real problems' begin?

For me, the idea of inerrancy isn't about ignoring the human messiness, but about trusting that a perfect God is capable of using that messiness to deliver a perfect, truthful message. I see the Gospel variations not as errors, but as a multi-layered witness. Does your view of inspiration allow for the text to be 100% reliable even with its 'problems,' or do you feel we have to pick and choose which parts are actually from God?

Again asking in good faith here to understand where y'all are coming from.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Thank you for articulating why this bothers me so much. Also, the debate over defining inerrancy illustrates another point. If you search online for local churches and look at their websites, I would wager every evangelical church has a statement of belief that includes their stance that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.

Yet here we are, several thoughtful people in the same thread using the same word but meaning very different things by it, and one of us explicitly saying, “I accept inerrancy, but I’m not going to explain or defend what that actually entails.”

For me, that connects directly to dispensationalism and to a certain style of fundamentalist evangelicalism more broadly. You get a very rigid, literal framework, often developed in the 19th–20th century, treated as if it were simply “what the Bible teaches,” and then that framework is wrapped in the language of “infallible and inerrant.”

Once that happens, questioning the framework, its timelines, or its moral implications isn’t just disagreeing with an interpretation; it’s treated as if you’re rebelling against God himself. At the same time, those same communities usually show very little tolerance for moral or theological views outside their system, while expecting the rest of us to treat their system as uniquely authoritative precisely because they claim that special access to infallibility and inerrancy.

I’m much closer to where you land on this: “divinely inspired” seems both more historically rooted and more honest about what we actually have in front of us—a collection of texts that bear witness to people wrestling with God over centuries, with real beauty and real problems in them.

That kind of framing leaves room to admit where we’ve constructed elaborate systems (including dispensational timelines) that may say more about our own anxieties and cultural assumptions than about God, without having to pretend that the word “inerrant” guarantees the whole worldview by default.

You are right, there are those statements of faith at most evangelical churches and universities. There also is a tendency to fire or "kick out" people if it is discovered that they don't believe those things.

I like your bolded part. People like certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. It is no surprise that these ideas cropped up during the industrial revolution and daily life began to change at a rapid pace. It doesn't mean they are good ideas or theologically sound though. It also leads to a certain type of arrogance and is dismissive of very valid concerns.

 

[GratefulPoke]

I really appreciate how you described the Bible as a collection of texts where people are 'wrestling with God.' I think we both agree that the human element of the Bible is vibrant and real.

My genuine question for you and @GratefulPoke, as I try to understand your perspective, is about the nature of God's role in that 'wrestling.' If we believe God is perfect and the source of all Truth, how do we determine where the 'divine inspiration' ends and the 'real problems' begin?

For me, the idea of inerrancy isn't about ignoring the human messiness, but about trusting that a perfect God is capable of using that messiness to deliver a perfect, truthful message. I see the Gospel variations not as errors, but as a multi-layered witness. Does your view of inspiration allow for the text to be 100% reliable even with its 'problems,' or do you feel we have to pick and choose which parts are actually from God?

Again asking in good faith here to understand where y'all are coming from.

Thanks for your post and looking to continue the conversation in good faith.

As I have shared before, I left the faith and consider myself a non-theist, so that should also be considered in my responses. If I approach this conversation with the assumption that Christianity is more or less true and God is perfect and is the source of all truth, then I would have to go with humans introduced their own biases and errors, and thus were imperfect in their teachings and constructions of the bible.

The reason why I would fall into this camp is because we can demonstrate that there are indeed errors in the bible and not just a few. The existence of a single error is enough to invalidate the "inerrancy & infallable" claim because we would be able to determine that the claim is meritless. Furthermore, there are some falsifiable claims in the bible, so we can test those claims on their merits and find them to be true or false.

I'll use two examples to demonstrate this. First, we have a direct contradiction between the Matthew and Mark accounts: In Matthew 12:30, Jesus says, “Whoever is not with me is against me”, but in Mark 9:40, he says the opposite: “Whoever is not against us is for us” both are teachings of Jesus chronologically in the same place in the gospel narrative. Both cannot be true, which one is it?

For the second example, lets look at 2 Samuel 15:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

If we take the command as the literal word of God, then he is not perfect and is particularly petty, cruel and vindictive. Since there are many other types of errors: historical errors, typographical errors, moral errors, theological/eisegetical errors in the bible, the only way to rectify this with a perfect God would be to determine that humans introduced their own bias, thoughts and concepts into the text.

Based on the evidence available to us, which would eliminate inerrancy and infalability as an option, there are only 3 primary conclusions one can come to regarding the bible. Everything else would be a minor variations of them:

1) God is perfect, but humans were imperfect in their recording of events and concepts
2) Humans accurately recorded events and concepts and God is not perfect
3) The bible is a compilation of what some ancient people thought about God and a great piece of anthropological study, but that is more or less it.

If I were a Christian and believed God is perfect, only option 1 would be viable.

 

[RxCowboy]

“I accept inerrancy, but I’m not going to explain or defend what that actually entails.”

I have explained it and in fact did so in the very message where I said, "I accept inerrancy". If you want to ask questions I'll be more than happy to answer them. What I'm not going to do is argue over it, debate it, or fight about it. If this thread is going to be religion and philosophy fight club, then no thank you.

Peace out.

 

[LaB_OkState]

Thanks for your post and looking to continue the conversation in good faith.

As I have shared before, I left the faith and consider myself a non-theist, so that should also be considered in my responses. If I approach this conversation with the assumption that Christianity is more or less true and God is perfect and is the source of all truth, then I would have to go with humans introduced their own biases and errors, and thus were imperfect in their teachings and constructions of the bible.

The reason why I would fall into this camp is because we can demonstrate that there are indeed errors in the bible and not just a few. The existence of a single error is enough to invalidate the "inerrancy & infallable" claim because we would be able to determine that the claim is meritless. Furthermore, there are some falsifiable claims in the bible, so we can test those claims on their merits and find them to be true or false.

I'll use two examples to demonstrate this. First, we have a direct contradiction between the Matthew and Mark accounts: In Matthew 12:30, Jesus says, “Whoever is not with me is against me”, but in Mark 9:40, he says the opposite: “Whoever is not against us is for us” both are teachings of Jesus chronologically in the same place in the gospel narrative. Both cannot be true, which one is it?

For the second example, lets look at 2 Samuel 15:

If we take the command as the literal word of God, then he is not perfect and is particularly petty, cruel and vindictive. Since there are many other types of errors: historical errors, typographical errors, moral errors, theological/eisegetical errors in the bible, the only way to rectify this with a perfect God would be to determine that humans introduced their own bias, thoughts and concepts into the text.

Based on the evidence available to us, which would eliminate inerrancy and infalability as an option, there are only 3 primary conclusions one can come to regarding the bible. Everything else would be a minor variations of them:

1) God is perfect, but humans were imperfect in their recording of events and concepts
2) Humans accurately recorded events and concepts and God is not perfect
3) The bible is a compilation of what some ancient people thought about God and a great piece of anthropological study, but that is more or less it.

If I were a Christian and believed God is perfect, only option 1 would be viable.

Thanks for the reply (hope this harkens to discussions boards from seminary ).

I appreciate the clarity of your three options. It helps me see exactly where our paths diverge.

Regarding the Matthew and Mark contradiction, I actually see those as two sides of the same coin rather than a logical failure. In one, Jesus warns against false neutrality (Matthew), and in the other, he warns against religious gatekeeping (Mark). To me, a perfect revelation would include both of those nuances because life is nuanced.

As for the Amalekites, I agree that's a heavy and difficult text. Where you see a moral error, I see a difficult look at divine judgment. If I believe God is the author of life, I have to grapple with the fact that His justice might look different and more severe than my own, yet still perfect.

The reason I can’t land on your Option 1 is that if I believe humans introduced errors into the core teachings/narratives, I lose any objective way to know who God actually is. I'd be left picking and choosing based on my own modern biases.

My question for you is if we assume for a moment that a perfect God exists, wouldn't he be capable of ensuring his message remained inerrant despite the human hands involved? Or do you think the human element automatically guarantees error?

I also want to acknowledge that we are likely approaching these texts with very different hermeneutical frameworks.

You are looking at these passages as independent data points to be tested for logical consistency. I am approaching them through a framework of biblical theology, where I assume a coherent big picture and look for how these seemingly disparate parts fit into a unified whole.

Because of this, I realize we probably can’t solve every specific textual criticism or historical problem here in this forum. However, I’m really interested in the philosophical side: In your view, is the human element inherently a source of corruption, or is there a version of a perfect God that could successfully communicate through imperfect vessels without losing the truth?

 

[TheMonkey]

I have explained it and in fact did so in the very message where I said, "I accept inerrancy". If you want to ask questions I'll be more than happy to answer them. What I'm not going to do is argue over it, debate it, or fight about it. If this thread is going to be religion and philosophy fight club, then no thank you.

Peace out.

I accept that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I also accept that it has no meaning until we give it meaning. It's like the song Hotel California, Don Henley can say what it means to him as the author all day long, but people are going to read into it what they want to read into it. So, what do those two things mean together? I'm still working that out.

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t give me an explanation of what you mean by infallible. I’m honestly having a hard time tracking with you. Maybe it’s just a miscommunication. If you stated it more clearly somewhere, just help me out and quote it in your reply.

I also don’t think any of us are trying to turn this into a “fight club,” but instead are asking for clarification. Meanwhile, it appears you are getting defensive and being obscure with your responses.

I’d much rather have an intellectually honest discussion where we can wrestle with these topics without there being any sacred cows.

 

[RxCowboy]

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t give me an explanation of what you mean by infallible. I’m honestly having a hard time tracking with you. Maybe it’s just a miscommunication. If you stated it more clearly somewhere, just help me out and quote it in your reply.

I also don’t think any of us are trying to turn this into a “fight club,” but instead are asking for clarification. Meanwhile, it appears you are getting defensive and being obscure with your responses.

I’d much rather have an intellectually honest discussion where we can wrestle with these topics without there being any sacred cows.

Since you're asking... to start with, there's a difference between doctrines that I "accept" and doctrines that i "believe or affirm". The latter are dearly held, the former not so much. I had already stated in an earlier post how I differ from most evangelicals and all fundamentalists in the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility - I do not accept that the bible should be interpreted literally (woodenly), or that the bible is either a history or science textbook or a chronograph. To all fundamentalists and most evangelicals, all of those things are necessary for inerrancy and infallibility. Science in the bible is only accurate in that it accurately depicts the understanding of the natural world in the time and cultural of the original oral histories/texts. To try to force 21st century understandings of the natural world into the bible is to torture scripture. To try to use the bible as a chronograph to date the earth is at best an extra-scriptural exercise. I've said all these things before, multiple times.

As to the Hotel California analogy... we give any text we read meaning as we read it. You are giving what I'm writing here meaning as you read my words. The meaning that you give my words here may or may not reflect my intent. Misunderstandings are common among humans because we interpret through our own knowledge, experience, biases, etc. We also do t his with scripture. We give it meaning.

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

"Rightly handling the word of truth" means more than just reading it. I posted a while back about the 23rd Psalm and the rod and staff. In the group discussion that followed one of the men made the comment that "the rod is satan". I didn't speak, there wasn't an opportunity, but the rod in the 23rd Psalm couldn't possibly be satan. How do I know this? "your rod and your staff, they comfort me." Two things: there really was no concept of satan at the time that David wrote the 23rd psalm, so he couldn't have possibly intended for the rod to have represented satan, and no one who read the psalm of David's time would have interpreted it that way. And if David had a concept of who satan was, he certainly never would have called him a "comfort". The man in my group was not rightly handling the word of truth. He was reading things into it from his own knowledge, experiences, biases, etc. that simply were never intended. I've spoken before about exegesis (trying to understand scripture as close to the intent of the author and as close to the understanding of the original audience as possible) and hermeneutics (building bridges of understanding from an ancient cultural context to a modern context in our own culture). If I were going to apply my own exegetical principles to Hotel California I would hear Don Henley's explanation and simply accept it, that's what the author intended (or so he says).

 

[TheMonkey]

Since you're asking... to start with, there's a difference between doctrines that I "accept" and doctrines that i "believe or affirm". The latter are dearly held, the former not so much. I had already stated in an earlier post how I differ from most evangelicals and all fundamentalists in the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility - I do not accept that the bible should be interpreted literally (woodenly), or that the bible is either a history or science textbook or a chronograph. To all fundamentalists and most evangelicals, all of those things are necessary for inerrancy and infallibility. Science in the bible is only accurate in that it accurately depicts the understanding of the natural world in the time and cultural of the original oral histories/texts. To try to force 21st century understandings of the natural world into the bible is to torture scripture. To try to use the bible as a chronograph to date the earth is at best an extra-scriptural exercise. I've said all these things before, multiple times.

As to the Hotel California analogy... we give any text we read meaning as we read it. You are giving what I'm writing here meaning as you read my words. The meaning that you give my words here may or may not reflect my intent. Misunderstandings are common among humans because we interpret through our own knowledge, experience, biases, etc. We also do t his with scripture. We give it meaning.

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

"Rightly handling the word of truth" means more than just reading it. I posted a while back about the 23rd Psalm and the rod and staff. In the group discussion that followed one of the men made the comment that "the rod is satan". I didn't speak, there wasn't an opportunity, but the rod in the 23rd Psalm couldn't possibly be satan. How do I know this? "your rod and your staff, they comfort me." Two things: there really was no concept of satan at the time that David wrote the 23rd psalm, so he couldn't have possibly intended for the rod to have represented satan, and no one who read the psalm of David's time would have interpreted it that way. And if David had a concept of who satan was, he certainly never would have called him a "comfort". The man in my group was not rightly handling the word of truth. He was reading things into it from his own knowledge, experiences, biases, etc. that simply were never intended. I've spoken before about exegesis (trying to understand scripture as close to the intent of the author and as close to the understanding of the original audience as possible) and hermeneutics (building bridges of understanding from an ancient cultural context to a modern context in our own culture). If I were going to apply my own exegetical principles to Hotel California I would hear Don Henley's explanation and simply accept it, that's what the author intended (or so he says).

We were very involved with a church for 17 years that was practically a Bible Church. So I have an appreciation for exegesis and hermeneutics. I think Rob Bell was a master of this and that is why his Nooma video series was so popular. Then he started challenging extrabiblical doctrine on hell and got labeled a heretic.

This is interesting, but I feel like we’re dancing around the crux of the matter. Maybe this question will help. What keeps you from saying the Bible contains errors?

 

[RxCowboy]

We were very involved with a church for 17 years that was practically a Bible Church. So I have an appreciation for exegesis and hermeneutics. I think Rob Bell was a master of this and that is why his Nooma video series was so popular. Then he started challenging extrabiblical doctrine on hell and got labeled a heretic.

This is interesting, but I feel like we’re dancing around the crux of the matter. Maybe this question will help. What keeps you from saying the Bible contains errors?

"Science in the bible is only accurate in that it accurately depicts the understanding of the natural world in the time and cultural of the original oral histories/texts."

What does that mean?

1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust,
and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill,
to set them among princes,
and to make them inherit the throne of glory:
for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

There are not four actual pillars that the earth sets upon. Nor is the firmament suspended above the earth on pillars, nor are there four actual corners of the earth. What's more, when Moses wrote that the world flooded, he had no concept of North and South America. What would Moses and his audience thought "the world" to be? It wasn't a geo-globe, therefore "the world" that flooded was not geo-global.

Leviticus 11:5
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

The coney, or the rock hyrax which was common in the region, does not chew the cud. They rodents, not ruminants. They don't have hooves, they have feet. 1 Sam 2:8 and Levi 11:5 are not scientifically accurate, at least not as far as our 21st century understanding of the natural world. They do, however, accurately reflect the understanding of the natural world in that time and cultural context. Though I've heard preachers try to explain how the coney actually does chew the cud, which is silly to me.


The dead sea scrolls are approx. 1000 years older than the Masoretic text.

Psalm 22:16 (Masoretic text) For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me; like a lion, they are at my hands and feet
Psalm 22:15 (Dead Sea scrolls) For dogs have surrounded me. A company of evildoers have enclosed me. They have pierced[1] my hands and feet.

This appears to be a transcription error. The Masoretic text says "ka'ari" (like a lion) while the older Dead Sea scrolls says "ka'aru" ("they have pierced" or "dug"). Only the autographs are without error. We no longer have the autographs.

Matthew 27:3-8
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:16-19
“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

These are contradicting stories of how the potter's field came to be known as the "Field of Blood". They cannot both be true. In one it says the priests bought the field with the money Judas gave back, and in the other it says Judas acquired the field with the money, and there are different reasons for "Field of Blood". I have no problem with saying that the two scriptures contradict each other, because they clearly do.