Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

This came up on RAZD's thread about age correlations, starting at Message 876 both GDR and dwise commenting that creationists wrongly insist that the Bible is inerrant. It's off topic there so if anyone has more to say on the subject it does need a new thread, although I don't think there's much to discuss about it, just inerrantists saying we hold to it no matter what and anti-inerrantists saying science won't let us.

In any case here's my answer to dwise and I'll post my answer to GDR in the next post.

dwise1 writes: Creationists keep claiming that the Bible does not contain any error and that if even a single error were to be found in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in error and completely false and it must be thrown into the dustbin (Br for "garbage can"). Furthermore, they claim that if the Bible is not true then God does not exist (or alternatively that God is a Liar and must not be worshipped). Either way, they are taught that they must abandon their faith and become atheists (not real atheists, but rather the perverted Christian version). Additionally, they have made many false claims about the real world and have assigned those false claims the same inerrancy status as they have the Bible. Therefore, if they false claims about the real world are shown to be false, then that disproves the Bible which in turn disproves God. Obviously, the Bible is not completely devoid of errors. And obviously their false claims about the real world are false. They have booby-trapped their faith and then stumbled into their own traps. Or to put it into the terms that GDR offers, they are putting words into God's mouth, words that God never said and never would say. I do not believe any of that. I have a much more realistic understanding of the Bible. It obviously contains errors, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the rest of it is in error. That also had no bearing whatsoever on whether God exists or not. And false claims about the real world are just plain false and should not be used. Making one's faith dependent on those false claims about the real world can only result in driving everybody away from that false creationist theology. Creationists must examine what they believe in order to weed out false beliefs such as "creation science". Actual creationists (as opposed to faux creationists like creation) believe that God created that universe. Science studies how the universe works. Creationists claim that explanations using natural processes for how something works denies God, whereas actual creationists believe that God created those natural processes, including evolutionary processes. There is no conflict between divine Creation and science, including evolution. The only thing that causes any conflict with science is when creationists inject their false theology and false claims.

Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think. There was no conflict with science until the pseudosciences of the Theory of Evolution and the Old Earth came along. (Galileo was opposed by the Roman Church's adherence to Aristotle, not the Bible). There is nothing false about our theology, the problem is that these are pseudosciences and they create the conflict.

Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition:

It doesn't get into issues of creation science beyond making the general statement that the Bible is correct wherever it touches on such matters. This is stated in Article XII:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrany writes: WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In other words it denies the criteria used by science to argue against the Bible. Where issues remain unresolved it exhorts believers to affirm the truth of the Bible on the expectation that eventually it will be shown that the supposed contradiction is an illusion.

This is our foundation. Any of our particular attempts to answer scientific claims may be wrong, but the Bible remains the foundation and the truth we are always striving for.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

GDR to creation writes: You keep trying to have the Bible say something that wasn't intended when it was written and isn't intended now.

Biblical inerrancy was intended then and now. I'm including a link below to a document on the subject.

It draws you and others away from what God is really trying to tell us.

Not so. Creation is simply affirming what all Christians affirm, that God is right and any claims to the contrary don't matter.

Let science do the job it does very well and learn from it. It tells us how things are and how it got to be that way. Let us use our Christianity to tell us why things are the way they are.

Science is wonderful and does not contradict the Bible. Evolution is false science.

When you look at evolutionary theory you should look at it with amazement that God could bring about a process that allowed you and all the other myriad of living creatures to evolve.

God created creatures to "evolve" -- vary in wonderful ways -- only within their Kind, but not from one Kind or Species to another. This is very clear from the Bible for those who know the Bible is God's inerrant word.

Science has given us healthier longer and fuller lives. Why don't you just be grateful to God for what it has accomplished instead of treating it like an enemy.

I haven't read all of creation's posts but I doubt he is saying anything at all against science as such since Christians strongly affirm true science, True science is a gift from God and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada.

And here's the link to this document I also just posted to dwise:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition .

Besides noting what I posted to dwise, I'd particularly like you to be aware of the section titled Authority: Christ and the Bible because you are always asserting that Christ is the Word but the Bible is not:

Chicago Statement writes: Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son. It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own. The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of Messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings which together make up our Bible. By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

(Galileo was opposed by the Roman Church's adherence to Aristotle, not the Bible).

Here's the actual condemnation of Galileo.

Note how it says "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture", and "the said opinion [...] can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture" and "it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held" and so on.

Note also that they never mention Aristotle.

Note also that in 1536 Petrus Ramus successfully defended his doctoral thesis that "Quaecumque ab Aristotle dicta essent, commentitia esse" ("Everything Aristotle said was wrong.") without the Roman Catholic Church so much as batting an eyelid.

Faith writes: Biblical inerrancy was intended then and now.

Here is a quote of Augustine of Hippo from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" which predates Darwin by over a thousand years. Inerrancy was not intended then or now.

quote:

---

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’

---

Faith writes: Science is wonderful and does not contradict the Bible. Evolution is false science.

Science cannot contradict the Bible as they are answering different questions. I disagree that evolution is false science, but even if it is, that still does not mean the your understanding of how to read the Bible is correct.

Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT. On divorce He even goes so far as to say that it came from Moses, not from God.

Also in all 3 synoptic Gospels it tells about how the Pharisees claimed that the miracles of Jesus were done through evil powers. Jesus goes on to say that ascribing that which is good to evil blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

You are doing essentially the same thing. You are calling evil, (genocide and public stoning etc), good by your heretical understanding of Scripture.

Incidentally in the first post you talked about me not calling the Bible the word of God. I believe that the Bible is a library of books that God uses to speak to us. However I would call it the word of God while Jesus is the "Word of God". John tells us that the logos existed from time immemorial and became flesh. He didn't say that it became a book. It's in the Bible.

I gather there was some bad biblical theology that was used against Galileo also, but even Wikipedia lays the problem on the Church's adherence to Aristotle and Ptolemy:

Galileo's contributions caused difficulties for theologians and natural philosophers of the time, as they contradicted scientific and philosophical ideas based on those of Aristotle and Ptolemy and closely associated with the Catholic Church. In particular, Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus, which showed it to circle the sun, and the observation of moons orbiting Jupiter, contradicted the geocentric model of Ptolemy, which was backed and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church,[4][5] and supported the Copernican model advanced by Galileo.[6]

Some passages in the Bible are mentioned as contradicted by Galileo's theory also, but in the end this view changed, at least in Protestant circles I believe.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you're putting the cart before the horse here. Sure, they backed the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy rather than the heliocentric cosmology of Aristarchus of Samos but that wasn't because they had a big crush on Ptolemy or because they did eeny-meeny-miney-mo but because they thought that Ptolemy's teaching fit with Scripture and Aristarchus's didn't.

Augustine was all over the place on some subjects. He's great on salvation by faith but not so great on science.

Science cannot contradict the Bible as they are answering different questions.

Not according to the statement I linked which clearly says the Bible is to be held as inerrant on matters of history and science as well as spiritual matters.

I disagree that evolution is false science, but even if it is, that still does not mean the your understanding of how to read the Bible is correct.

I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses, which includes some statements that have implications for today's sciences. I think it's pretty clear that there is no contradiction with all the sciences which as you say have made our lives better in many ways, and which we should thank God for; which leaves the Old Earth and Evolutionary Theory as the only sources of conflict, and again, sources of nothing in the slightest bit useful to us. These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves. It all remains theory or conjecture as a result. Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture.

Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.

Not according to my theology. He reveals their spiritual meaning whereas the Jews understood them to refer only to outward behavior. So Jesus said the commandment against adultery isn't just against the outward act, but is also violated by inner thoughts of lust; that the commandment against murder isn't just against the outward act but is also violated by inner thoughts of hatred toward anybody. In other words He showed their true breadth, he didn't contradict them.

On divorce He even goes so far as to say that it came from Moses, not from God.

No He doesn't. He says Moses was lenient about divorce, allowing it because of the hardness of the men's hearts, though in reality God hates divorce and opposes it in all cases. In this case as in the above two cases discussed, Jesus could be said to show that the true commandment is stricter than the Jews take it to be.

Also in all 3 synoptic Gospels it tells about how the Pharisees claimed that the miracles of Jesus were done through evil powers. Jesus goes on to say that ascribing that which is good to evil blasphemes the Holy Spirit. You are doing essentially the same thing. You are calling evil, (genocide and public stoning etc), good by your heretical understanding of Scripture.

Except that it is Scripture itself which ascribes those events as God's acts of justice. Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I.

Incidentally in the first post you talked about me not calling the Bible the word of God. I believe that the Bible is a library of books that God uses to speak to us. However I would call it the word of God while Jesus is the "Word of God". John tells us that the logos existed from time immemorial and became flesh. He didn't say that it became a book. It's in the Bible.

Well, read what I quoted. It says that there is a reciprocity between the written Word and Christ as the Word of God, that ultimately they are one, validating each other.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then the argument would have to be that they were wrong. But I keep encountering descriptions of Romanism's adherence to Aristotle in particular, even a former priest who says that's all he was taught, just Aristotle, not the Bible. However, there do seem to be some confusions involved in all this.

Well, you know, I showed you the document. There's eleven mentions of Holy Scripture in there and none of Aristotle and Ptolemy. You might say that they were misinterpreting scripture, you might even say that the plausibility of the Ptolemaic model made it easier to do so. But they thought they were defending Scripture and not Ptolemy just as when you talk flood geology you think that you're defending the Bible rather than Henry Morris.

The Chicago Statement was written in 1978. To call it evidence of the intent of the actual authors of the Bible is nonsense. As indeed is the idea that inerrant was intended from the beginning. It is nothing more than a statement of belief from a selection of 20th Century church leaders whose churches represented only a fraction of the Christian population.

If your ideas about the writing of the Bible were correct Jeremiah would have to know that he was contradicting Deuteronomy. (Deuteronomy itself was almost certainly written later, so he may not have)

The author of Luke surely knew that his version of the Oliver Discourse differed from that found in Mark (there are significant disagreements between Luke/Acts and Matthew but nobody knows if the author of Luke knew of Matthew). Though we can surely say that the author of Luke would not have regarded Matthew

Biblical Inerrancy is a false dogma. In the minds who cling to it, it may stand against all challenges - even the truth. But that is all. A falsehood remains false no matter how many people insist on believing it even after it is shown to be false.

quote:

---

Not according to my theology.

---

Alternate theology=alternate facts?

Faith writes: I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses

According to the title of your topic, Bible inerrancy stands against all objections. But what does it stand on? A statement? People can write whatever they want.

I could, for the sake of the discussion, grant you that all the biblical claims that go against science are right. For example the entire universe being around 6,000 years old, the global flood or Jesus's resurrection. But even then, you have the immense task of addressing every single of the many contradictions in the Bible. For example you have two stories of Paul's conversion; one where the people that were with him saw the light but couldn't hear anything, and the other where they did hear voices but couldn't see anything. In the best case scenario, only one can be correct because they are mutually contradictory. This already shows that at least one single statement in the Bible is incorrect. But is worse; we know the Bible is full of such examples.

Faith writes: Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture.

I don't see how could that ever happen, but maybe the time to believe such biblical claims is when they are satisfactorily explained, not when we only have some statement saying that the Bible is free from error.

Well, you know, I showed you the document. There's eleven mentions of Holy Scripture in there and none of Aristotle and Ptolemy. You might say that they were misinterpreting scripture, you might even say that the plausibility of the Ptolemaic model made it easier to do so. But they thought they were defending Scripture and not Ptolemy...

Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all.

just as when you talk flood geology you think that you're defending the Bible rather than Henry Morris.

Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning. As I've said, it's foundational, everything else follows from it. God inspired it, therefore it is inerrant.

The usual resolution of the incident you mention has to do with "hearing" meaning "understanding" and when it says they saw no man nothing contradicts that since in the other cases all they saw was light, not a person.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.