Are There Errors in the Bible?

There are some, yes. But there are many more. Even among the "some", the majority of them do not question the chtistianity of tose who differ from that view.

Thankfully, however, those are a scant few. The majority who ascribe to a literal YEC 6k view are respectful of those who differ, and are not questioning the salvation of others. One should paint them with the same brush as the extremists who do question others' salvation almost routinely.

Anyhoo, this thread is going off in a direction which is waaaayy off topic, so I think it would be good if we could reel it in a bit.

 

Larry,

"I have no problem saying taht there are apparent inconsistencies and apparent conflicts. BUt I would emphasize the word apparent. Since we are not omniscient, we should assume that we simply do not know enough. If we had all the facts, there would be no contradictions or inconsistencies. But again, we cannot assume our knowledge is that big."

This is quite reasonable. But I think many of us would disagree with the statement in boldface. If we think we don't know enough we should learn more! "Science" is nothing more than observation of what's around us! I can't figure out where it gets a bad rap as something actively evil.

If there is an apparent inconsistency we should find out what's up! Maybe it's a manuscript copying error (like the age of Ahaziah) or maybe it's a passage that really wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I have yet to see one solid reason to abandon the normal reading of the Bible.

How is YOUR reading more normal than another? Why would some passages written 3000-4000 years by those who thought differently than we do be MOST PROPERLY READ in 20th century western context?

 

Jason,

May I first say that I admire the work you have done - I'm sure it has helped and will help alot of people.

I do have a few problems with the way you present things however. I realize that there are some flaws in nearly every major "scientific theory". You probably know some of these specifically better than I. I think that those without advanced degrees in the natural sciences tend to not fully grasp all the facets of the various theories. When something does not turn out exactly as planned, like the random generation of chiral centers, galaxy movement, certain aspects of carbon 14, speed of light etc. - creationists jump up and say, "see it all falls apart" - when in fact the majority of applications of a given theory still hold true.

Just some basic things that make one wonder...

We see stars far, far away - just the fact that we see them proves that enough time has passed for their light to reach us.

What about all the rock formations and the dating thereof?

If your reading of the scientific facts leads you to believe that the idea of a young earth is much more likely then (no offense meant) I have to question your knowledge and understanding of those facts.

 

I guess God was not strong enough to allow us to see the light of the stars as soon as they were created?

 

First, what exactly are you disagreeing. I assume you are not disagreeing with us not being omniscient. Why would you disagree that if we knew everything there would be no contradiction? Isn't that a rather large jump?

As for science, it is good to hear you say that it is nothing more than observation of what's around us. Doesn't that automatically take origins out of the realm of science? I think it does based on that very reason. OEC is a hypothesis; YEC is a hypothesis. The question is which better fits with the facts of known science and the text of Scripture. I would argue that YEC does.

I agree ... but those are both fairly easily discernable from the text and neither is the problem in Gen 1.

Again, I agree ... which is why I am a YEC

Because it treats the text as normal language, not hypothesizing about genres to fit a presupposition.

Because God's communication is timeless and there is nothing in the creation account to suggest anything but a literal interpretation of the Gen 1 passage. There are quite certainly figurative passages in Scripture. But there are clear reasons to take them as such and none of the reasons appear in Gen 1. The figurative interpretation of Gen 1 is the need to find a way for something else to co-exist (old earth). I would say that something is unnecessary.

 

Jason,

For me to present a case for OEC is probably not the point of this thread - maybe I'll start another one for this!

I am familiar with Barry Setterfield's arguments. They are interesting but...
I won't critique him since I am not an astronomer or physicist - but they seem rather far-fetched.

I guess what I'm saying is that based on my observation of the facts YEC seems extraordinarily unlikely. All of our accepted "theories" are just that (theories) and there are some things that don't quite line up. But that doesn't diminsh the fact that I find the overwhelming majority of evidence in favor of OEC. The vast majority of natural scientists would agree with this - although I acknowledge that some do not.

This, combined with what I know about semitic epic and grammar, lead me to think that the Genesis account was not meant to be a history-book account of the sequence of creation.

 

Dr. Meadows,

Thank you so very much for this outstanding post! The Josh McDowell approach to the Bible was a source of confusion and doubt for me in the late 1970’s. Had I not already had a solid education in the Bible, I believe that Josh McDowell probably would have persuaded me that Christianity is intellectually dishonest and that the Bible is a book for fools. Harold Lindsell and The Battle for the Bible was another hurdle for me to get past. Scholarship that is so shallow that it gives every sign of being dishonest does not honor God and is a major stumbling block for those persons for whom honesty and integrity and thoroughness are prerequisites for believability.

 

This is nothing more than your personal opinion, and a very stifling opinion at that. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ERROR FREE!!! Anyone who believes every detail in the Bible is true just because they were told by some man or woman that every detail in the Bible is true is a fool’s fool. I do not believe that the Bible is true because someone told me that it is; I believe that the Bible is true because I have applied it to my life and found it to be true.

I also believe that the Bible is because of the men who wrote it. Paul and Luke are not just names on pages in the Bible; Paul and Luke are dear brothers in Christ whom I know better than my flesh and blood brothers. I know them to be men of integrity that I can and do trust with my life. The humanness and simplicity of Mark pops right out of the page. His Gospel may not be 100% accurate, but when compared with the gospels of Matthew and Luke, I can see that he honestly wrote the facts as he saw them. The Epistle of James meshes perfectly with the James that Luke introduced me to in the Book of Acts. Does his theology mesh 100% with Paul’s theology? I believe that God would have us to answer such questions not only honestly, but with thoroughness and integrity. The Bible does not have to be humanly perfect to be divinely perfect. God is the measure of truth, not mortal men.

 

If God said such a thing, He certainly didn’t say it in the Bible!

I suppose that this is one possible, but far-reaching, interpretation.

Why is it too much to ask that we believe that God indeed didn't lie?
[/QUOTE]

Let’s first read the Bible and see what it does and does not say! When people say that God promised to do something that He did not promise to, and did not do, they make Him out to be a liar. I rather doubt that God is especially pleased by such behavior!

 

I can not help but get highly offended when I read stuff like this on a Christian message board. God is not an action figure that one can purchase at K-Mart and play with in the sandbox. It staggers my mind how anyone could speak so presumptuously about God.

 

I have had several university friends who teach evolutionary biology, and from their point of view, Christians are Christians ONLY because they do not know any better! They have seen the junk put out by the Institute for Creation Research, and if anything is a tool of the devil to keep these men from coming to Christ, it is this junk, for it betrays the gross incompetence of the so-called scientists who write the junk.

I do not believe that the current state of scientific evidence supports the theory that man evolved from a pre-human organism, but the Institute for Creation Research certainly had nothing to do with that opinion. The Bible is not a text-book on the origin of man, and Christians, unless they are genuine biologists, need to concern themselves with the origin of sin and the atonement for sin rather than with physical anthropology less they continue to make fools of themselves and bring reproach not only upon themselves, but upon the Bible and the God who gave us the Bible.

 

No, there are only a few.

 

Maybe furthering the Kingdom of God is not important to you, but it is to me, and I suspect that is important to God as well

 

He doesn't have to. Any university worthy of the designation has thousands of volumes in its library that document that the earth is billions of years old. And besides the biology, geology, astrophyics, astronomy, molecular chemisty, etc., who wants to believe that God created the earth with trillions of fossils to fool us!

 

Are you not the guy who accused me in another thread of derailing the thread by asking you a very similar question? Yes, you are the man!

 

What could possibly be more obvious about this passage of scripture?

Every single day, all over the earth, there are very foolish people saying something like this:

“If the scientists are right, then the Bible is a book of lies.”

And every single day the scientists are finding more and more evidence that they are right. Yes, there are Christian weirdoes who find “fault” in scientific data that they do not understand or comprehend the significance of, but nonetheless the scientists are finding more and more evidence that they are right, and just about every kid in school knows that, so he is hearing from the Christians themselves that “the Bible is a book of lies.”

How could this possibly be anything other than a ministry Satan?

 

Whether or not there are errors in the Bible is partially a matter of perspective, but there can be NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that there are errors in understanding the Bible. There are many people who post to this message board who have never bothered to use so much as a basic Bible dictionary. If you really believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, why don’t you bother to study it as such? Why do you sit in front of your TV and watch trash when you could be learning the languages in which God gave the Bible to us? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD? If you did, your life would surely show it.

 

Craig,

"The Bible is not a text-book on the origin of man, and Christians, unless they are genuine biologists, need to concern themselves with the origin of sin and the atonement for sin rather than with physical anthropology..."

Very nicely said!