Are There Errors in the Bible?

Craig, reading your post above, are you an evolutionist? Do you really believe the earth is billions of years old? COuld you please clarify for me where you stand on these issues.

 

Amen!

 

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!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Craig,

We obviously do not have the original autographs, but to question whether the original autographs were free of error is pushing the envelope. If the original autographs were not error-free, then we are forced to question the integrity of God. How can we say those suppossed errors are accidental verses intentional? How can we ever identify them? Perhaps I misunderstood your statement and it's context.

 

Seems you both failed to read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...." God certainly does not expect me to become a biologist, or an anthropologist, or an astrophysicist, but he expects me to understand some measure of these things to "rightly divide the word of truth". As soon as biologists declare man evolved from animals, God expects the uneducated fishermen to declare "thus saith the Lord".

I don't have the background of either of you educationally, but I am not stupid. I may be uninformed and in need of enlightenment in some areas, but that does not disqualify me from forming opinions.

By the way, if we listened to "scientists" we would have believed them when they said Sodom and Gomorrah never existed. That the tale was a myth created for some spiritual purpose. My only point is that science often works with incomplete evidence and purports theories based on this incomplete evidence. The problem is that they report the theories a bit too "factually" then act surprised when they are disproven or when new evidence supercedes the old - like with the formation of galaxies.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Craig, It staggers my mind as to how you can say something like this. I said nothing presumptuous at all. I have simply believed God's word. He is the one who said it was "God-breathed" (all of it), and he is the one who said it was impossible for him to lie. I have no problems believing either. The doctrine of Scripture is more fundamental to Christianity than most allow. We tend to have a very weak doctrine of Scripture. We do not hold the word of God in very high esteem. And thus we end up with bad argumentation, artful dodging, etc.

You decry the methods of Josh McDowell (whom I haven't read) as intellectually dishonest, but when someone says that a day, morning and evening, equal millions of years you think they are being truthful. Now, can you honestly say that you gave that serious thought??? How can one be intellectually dishonest and not the other??? Surely you can see through that.

The fact remains that evolutionary biology is not proven. It is asserted without proof and indeed contrary to the actual proof that we have.

Charles says he doesn't believe YEC because of the great improbability of it. But have you guys ever stopped to consider the astronomical odds stacked against OEC or evolutionary biology? They are statistically non-existent. There is no chance at all that evolutionists are right, based on the mere probability, not to mention the science involved. We need a healthy return to critical thinking skills to teach young people to think through teh evidence rather than just buying what Dr. So and So says ...

 

In that same library you will find all kinds of books that document that God doesn't exist, that all religions lead to the same God, the Christ was not God, etc. Do you really think we should base our trust on the number of volumes that will claim a particular thing?

It is not necessary to believe in millions of years to have a fossil record. Nor is it absurd to think that God created the earth with the appearance of age. He most certainly did.

Interestingly enough, the Bible ties these two things together in Gen 3 and Rom 5. The problem of death in the world is the direct result of sin. Prior to sin, there was no death for living creatures ... those with a nephesh. The biologist that does not take this into account cannot possibly come to a correct conclusion on physical anthropology.

 

Larry,

" But have you guys ever stopped to consider the astronomical odds stacked against OEC or evolutionary biology? They are statistically non-existent. There is no chance at all that evolutionists are right, based on the mere probability, not to mention the science involved."

Where do you get this kind of thing?????

"We need a healthy return to critical thinking skills to teach young people ."

Yes we do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you missed a few things -

1. Few would imply that a day is symbolic of a million years or something like that. My argument is that the creation account is NOT symbolic at all. It is theological and not meant to biologically describe creation at all.

2. OEC does not equal evolution.

3. I still think you are not enough familiar with the "science" side to the issue if you insist that the facts are all in favor of YEC!!

 

Larry,

"In that same library you will find all kinds of books that document that God doesn't exist, that all religions lead to the same God, the Christ was not God, etc. Do you really think we should base our trust on the number of volumes that will claim a particular thing?"

Why is it that so many conclude that God doesn't exist?? Ps 14 would tell us that the fool says such things - and certainly these are to blame for their follies!

But I think a number of people see that Christian leaders make YEC literalism a necessary facet of Christianity and thus automatically believe that it must all be just the stuff of myth, like all the other "religions".

 

I suppose that this is one possible, but far-reaching, interpretation.
</font>[/QUOTE]This goes to God's character and attributes. If God lies, he is not all good. If he is not all good, he is not God, or at least not the God of the Bible. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it looked like you were saying that the Bible does not say God cannot lie.

As far as believing the original autographs are error free, this is a natural conclusion based on the words coming directly from God.

 

“Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical or life sciences.”

I urge you to look over the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”; The quoted sentence above comes from the book, “Inerrancy” (edited by Norman Geisler, Zondervan, 1980, sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy). [I’m pretty sure Geisler is an OEC].

Scholars have developed rules to interpret Scriptures that aid immensely us in our search for truth; these same rules also help us to avoid pitfalls that could lead us into err. But these methodologies have evolved into almost legalistic standards.

Consider the NT uses of various prophetic passages. We observe a lot of questionable interpretational issues that would never pass the the scholarly standards of today (e.g. Psalm 69:4/John 15:25 and Jeremiah 31:15/Matt. 2:16-18 among many others).

So what leads some of us to question the simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2?
The observed universe around us! God’s own general revelation! As said elsewhere on this thread there are a myriad of scientific proofs that support an ancient earth. Personally, I believe that many of the scientific theories offered in YEC literature today represent our current cultural decadence, knowledge gone wild, factual relativity.

What are some other seemly biblical beliefs that have been held as a standard and later have been set aside?

</font>

• Ethnocentrism (an earth center cosmology)-Copernicus (1500’s)</font>

</font>

• The 360-day year (now called a “prophetic year”)</font>

</font>

• Shape of the earth</font>

</font>

• A thinking heart or liver or bowel</font>

and we still maintained the doctrine of inerrancy. There were not Biblical errors, they were errors of interpretation.

Rob

[ July 13, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Jason,

Not surprising in the least, you have radically misread my posts. My argument was that there is no sense in posting data when an almost infinite supply of it is readily at hand. And no, I do not expect you to believe anything that I say that might honestly be considered questionable. It would be foolish of you to do so. But, of course, if you were to check out the things that I post, you would find them to be true. And no, just because a lot of 'secular scientists’ agree with my view does not make it true.

But, Jason, someone here is seriously distorting facts: a phony Th.D. from a phony school and "Lots of secular scientists agree.” Paper mill degrees from dishonest paper mills can only hurt ones testimony for the truthfulness of the Bible. That "Lots of secular scientists” is in reality well over 99% of scientists in the fields of biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, geology, and physical anthropology who have EARNED a REAL Ph.D. from a Real, NATIONALLY ACREDITED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY.

Does any of this mean that there are errors in the Bible? No, it does not, but certain individuals, through their own lack of integrity, bring into question the veracity of the Bible itself. In my personal opinion, the accuracy of the Bible would be questioned a whole lot less if those who teach and preach it were not themselves very questionable.

My personal suggestion is that those who defend the Bible should get their own house in order so that they do not discredit the Bible through the lives that they live.

Precious brothers and sisters in Christ,

Yes, I believe that the data presently available indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is billions of years old. No, I am not an evolutionist. No, the creation accounts in Genesis are not untruthful.

 

Jason

Your website has a wealth of information and it has aided me in my witness many, many times and I’ve listened to many of your debates on Audio sermon.com. I’ve also followed numerous debates of yours on various message boards. You did a fantastic job debating Francois Tremblay by the way.

May God bless you and your ministry and welcome to the board!

 

Jason,

A little twist on Craig's 99% of scientists comment...

I would posit (based on my own experience and the experience of my college and med school classmates) that the average bright young science student with an analytical nature will find the facts surrrounding the age of the earth to be overwhelmingly in favor of OEC. Such a student will likely find the creation science argument quite unconvincing. As such the average physical or natural scientist will feel the same. All of my biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, and mathematics professors at the University of Virginia shared this view.

Now the average conservative MDiv student may feel much differently.

My (perhaps biased) opinion is that anyone with significant training in the sciences, as taught in college and graduate level science (not apologetics) courses will find the YEC argument weak.