Are There Errors in the Bible?

Jason,

"Besides a few (IMHO) poor word choices and perhaps a couple of other issues, the KJV is free from error."

So in other words - except for a few errors, it's error free.

God gave us the bible on His terms - and we have what he wanted us to have! I believe that all perceived "errors" CAN be explained one way or another; this is God's word after all! However I don't like to take the stance that the bible's credibility (and therefore God's) is at stake if we cannot find a way to make each apparent disagreement (like the robe or the age of Ahaziah) LITERALLY correct in both places.

 

Jason Gastrich: "The Christian takes a certain "risk" when
they ponder alleged Bible errors. If the an answer
cannot be found and an error is proven,
then one's faith could be damaged."

Job 13:15 (KJV1769):

Though he slay me,
yet will I trust in him: ...

 

I think we would agree on that statements but what IS the Bible?? That is the question. I affirm that the Bible is the product of the breath fo the God who cannot lie and therefore cannot contain errors of any sort (else God would be a liar).

I agree ... but would note two things. 1) The student who "sees through" the answers may indeed be showing his ignorance and hostility towards God. 2) We don't have to have all the answers. There are a lot of things in life that we accept even though we do not understand the specifics of it. God said the Bible is his word; God said he cannot lie. Why is it too much to ask that we believe that God indeed didn't lie?

Doesn't this prove the truth fo the Bible?? That some who profess themselves to be wise are indeed fools? He left, not because they answers weren't good enough, but because he was not smart enough to understand Scripture.

The same thing ... an unbelieving mind is an unbelieving mind. It doesn't matter what tact they take to get there.

Greg Bahnsen has a great little book entitle Always Ready, where he talks a lot about authority in the realm of apologetics. You seem to be suggesting that we stoop to the authority fo the human mind ... "We can't understand how it is inerrant so therefore it must not be." I am suggesting that we acknowledge the depravity of the human mind becuase of sin ... "We can't understand how it is inerrant so therefore our minds must be limited."

There is a distinct difference.

 

Larry,

What I'm suggesting is that we not insist on finding a "least common denominator answer" for every perceived error.

I'm sure you're quite experienced in witnessing to people - but my neck of the woods is not your typical witness ground!! Try arguing for a young earth with a person who holds a PhD in environmental biology! He doesn't know more than God - but he knows more than Ankerberg and McDowell, or Dave Hunt.

Again I ask - what is there to fear? Are we afraid that if we apply the tools of that "human mind" (the one God made for us) that we might disprove God or talk ourselves out of our faith? If we are confident in our faith (as I am) we have nothing to fear from science!

As I said - traditional apologetics (and I have Bahnsen's book) is fine and works for most people. But if we want to be able to defend our faith to everyone (not just the average IQ person) we need to not be afraid to address tough questions and not simply say, "Oh our minds are just too depraved to understand that - don't dwell on those kinds ofquestions."

My ex-bro in law's problem is his own - but I think he is an example of what can happen if we teach all of our students to put their heads in the sand when a tough question comes up.

God's word is true - but that doesn't mean everything we as evangelicals have believed for the past few generations is!

 

Charles,

I agree that we should not put our head in the sand in the least. I think we ought to address tough issues head on and not be afriad to say we don't have all the answers. But the question is, what are we going to presuppose as the authority? The PHD hold his own mind (while admitting how much he doesn't know). The believer has to hold the Bible while admitting how much he doesn't know.

I recently talked to a PhD in Chemistry about issues of creation and science. He knew a lot more about science than I did. I knew a lot more about theology than he did. And he couldn't answer the questions posed by the Bible's assertions. His only recourse is to deny the Bible. I do not believe that is a recourse for a believer. BTW, there are wonderful resources out there for YEC from PhD and research scientists.

Bahnsen's book is a very non-traditional apologetic (in that most are evidentialists ... which is why the discussions with PhD come in). When I talk to people like that, I skip most of hte evidential discussion. We have to go to root of authority. What is this person willing to accept as authority? And why will they assert the knowledge and understanding of their sin darkened mind over the revelation from God who has never been darkened by sin?

There are tough questions in theology and bibliology, but I don't think we do ourselves any favor by burying our head in the sands of limited inerrancy (which is essentially what you are arguing for). Limited inerrancy itself is an oxymoron. The most unbelievable, non-evidential thing in all of Scripture is the very crux of theology ... the resurrection. If you can believe the resurrection, then you should have no problem believing that God created the earth just like he said he did.

BTW, on that note, it was interesting a few days ago to see that the scientists did not find what they expected in terms of the formation of galaxies. It just shows again how theoretical and unsolid the scientific world is once it gets beyond actual science. What else will we find in years to come that aren't what scientists have said??

My point is that we must argue for the supremacy of the inerrant word of God. Only then, do we have viable grounds from which to address a changing world, with minds that are darkened and limited by sinfulness.

 

Larry,

I would agree that the PhD doesn't have all the answers. But it seems that if a scientist comes up with an answer that is not traditional fundamentalist doctine - then he/she is AUTOMATICALLY accused of holding his/her own mind as a higher authority than God.

Let's take the age of the earth. Science and archeology have shown us that there are many reasons to believe the earth is millions of years old - although this is obviously not proven.

One who has a good understanding of semitic writing style and middle eastern sensibilities realizes that there are perhaps other ways to read the Genesis account - perhaps as an attempt to show, in language germane to the prior Babylonian myths, that YHWH really created everything. There are reasons to understand this not as a 20th century textbook passage about six literal days. Nahum Sarna's commentary on Genesis expounds this quite well.

Now these suggestions are likewise not proven - but why must they be ruled out? Perhaps because many 20th century Christians insist that the entire bible be read through the eyes of an uneducated modern westerner. But then again maybe this approach IS right.

We all accept that God is sovereign and that His word is inerrant and as He wanted it to be. My problem is that lots of us today "piggyback" our interpretation of parts of His word into inerrancy and then insist that others regard it accordingly.

Why can science not help us understand difficult aspects of the bible?

 

I would disagree. I don't think that is the case at all.

But again, I would dispute this. Science and archaeology depend on a huge number of unproven assumptions to arrive at their conclusions. Science on the other hand has given us a many reasons to believe that the earth is young. But again, dependent on a number of assumptions. The question is, which are the best set of assumptions? I would argue that the Bible teachings form the roundation for the best set of assumptions.

Again, not so fast there ... Hebrew scholars are fivided to be sure. But perhaps the most eminent Hebrew scholar of our day (Waltke) affirms that Gen 1 is intended to teach literal 24 hour days in succession. (He disagrees with that position, but he says that is what the text conveys). The old Babylonian tales line shows the assumptions involved. People assert that Genesis is a copy of the Babylonian tales reengineered to show YHWH as the creator. Why isn't it the other way around? Why do we not assume that the Babylonians (or other ancient nations) borrowed from the true creation account? That is indeed the far better assumption. The Hebrews of Gen 1 is not that difficult. I can sight read it. The attempts to characterize it as poetry or some such myth language do not derive from teh text but from external necessities. I cannot agree with that set of assumptions.

Because the text of Scripture rules them out. When that is the authority, I think we go with that.

I agree that this is a problem.

 

The four gospels differ slightly in what was written over Jesus' head on the cross. The four Gospels differ slightly as to the details on the morning of the discovery of the tomb.

If we say that the Bible has no factual errors, we're simply lying to ourselves, since they're clearly there. However, since we're not required to believe that the bible is error-free on fact, then this is completely a nonissue. We're required as Christians to accept the Bible as error free on truth. No one disputes that point.

Truth and fact are two separate things. The Bible is infallable and inerrant in regards to truth.

Exactly.

Well, it didn't take long at all for this to become a KJVO arguement, did it?

 

Larry,

That's all very reasonable. But...

"Science and archaeology depend on a huge number of unproven assumptions to arrive at their conclusions. Science on the other hand has given us a many reasons to believe that the earth is young. But again, dependent on a number of assumptions."

This is only partially true. The majority of evidence we have suggests an old earth. Anyone disputing this simply does not have adequate knowledge of the field. Now that being said there are reasons to believe a young earth. And the "theories" of science are just that - unproven theories.

You ask which is to be king? You argue that scripture should be. I certainly won't argue that - but I think what you mean (whether you realize it or not) is YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture should be king. The gospel itself is very simple - but that does not mean that every deep thing of the bible is easily reached by the third grade mind.

I regard Bruce Waltke highly - and he is right to suggest a literal 6 day account. That however is over and against an organized symbolic interpretation. The idea that a day really symbolizes 1,000,000 years or something like that. The question is was that 6 day account intended to be a history text - or something more deep. The early Hebrews didn't know much of what we know as physical science today - when they didn't know the origin of something they may have written figuratively about it.

So when God spoke to Moses and told him to write the creation account - is it surprising that he writes it in terms with which early Hebrews would be familiar?


"Now these suggestions are likewise not proven - but why must they be ruled out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the text of Scripture rules them out."

No, your interpretation rules them out.

Once again the problem is you are deciding what scripture says. I'll certainly not disagree on the primacy of God's word - but I disagree withsome of the interpretations on which you insist.

 

I should add this...

I'm not intending to bash good old time traditional teaching. I do assert however that must realize that our interpretations of scripture are human. And we must, in order to REALLY be able to defend the faith, be able to discuss tough questions.

At our last church I was the high school age Sunday school teacher. I taught good ol' dispensational theology! That's fine. WE just need to realize that some people may ask a few more questions than some of our human interpretations schemes can answer.

 

But the majority of evidence suggests nothing apart from teh presuppositions brought to the table. That point is way too underemphasized. The fact remains that if the Bible is literally true ... six successive 24 hour days a relatively short time ago ... the world looks exactly like what we should suspect. THere is no compelling evidence that disputes that, apart from the presuppositions of it. But alas, this is not a debate about those topics so perhaps we should steer away form it ...

As for interpretation, I have often said that that card gets played way too much. Whenever someone disagrees, they whip out the interpretation card ... and it simply won't play well ... There are some things that are interpretive to be sure. But there are also matters that are so explicit so as to render them indisputable to the honest mind. What those things are, again, is of some dispute to be sure, but the range of interpretive differences is not infinite.

There are clear theological reasons why OEC is ruled out that has nothign to do with interpretation, but rather with the direct statements of Scripture. That I why I say that Scripture rules them out.

John, truth and fact are not two separate things. Once you enter down this line, you enter a realm of the indefensible. The fact of the resurrection is a matter of truth. It is the most unbelievable miracle in all of Scripture. Yet there are those who affirm the resurrection because it a matter of the faith, who would deny the lesser miracles because they are too unbelievable. Such nonsense has no place in teh discussion. If we believe the greatest, why would we not believe the lesser. There is simply no reason to posit errors in the text of Scripture. And we certainly cannot separate our faith from this issue. If the Bible came from God, then it can have no errors, since God cannot lie. If there are errors (lies) in teh Bible, then it did not come from God, and we are left up to our own minds to determine what is "truth" and what is not. That is a philosophically and theologically indefensible position.

 

Not at all. I've never felt I need to defend my faith. Faith is not something needs to be proven. Jesus said that those who believe, and have not seen, are blessed. He also said that if one has faith the size of a mustard seed grain, nothing will be impossible to him. I have no need whatsoever for proof or defense of my relationship with God.

Certainly, I agree that this is questionable. However, there are many who place additional requirements on miracles. Miracles are works of wonder. There is no scriptural requirement for them to be works of magic. If we were able to go back in time, witness every miracle, and explain them scientifically, they would still be miracles.

Yet, so far in this discussion, some items percieved as errors have ben listed, and there has been no refutation of them as errors. It's almost akin of the WIzard of Oz saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".

Minor errors in fact that were documented by fallible authors is not a lie. Again, like presuming that truth and fact are symonymous, you presume from the assumption that an error is a lie. That presumption is not a reasonable assumption.

 

Larry,

Your point about creation is well taken - God could have easily created the earth as is - with rocks, coal and dinosaur skeletons to boot!

I don't know your educational background - but before I went to med school I was planning to get a combined MD PhD with research in molecular genetics and biochemistry. During my senior years in college I took most of the graduate level classes and even helped TEACH evolutionary biology!!

This was before I was saved obviously!

I've heard both sides of the argument quite thoroughly. I'll just tell you that to the unregenrated mind the creationist stance looks pretty weak. I remember the preachers who came to campus (at the University of Virginia) and preached to us. When I asked about creation and other difficult topics they admitted they didn't have all the answers but encouraged me not to let the devil "get me" with that kind of questions. My friends and I laughed at them - I really regret that now - but we did.

It is this kind of kid that I sort of have a heart for now. I think my knowledge of research science AND theology has helped me gain a good perspective on things.

I certainly respect your arguments - but you sound (I could be wrong) like one who is much more familiar with the creationist and biblical literalist stance and arguments than with other positions. Most of the books (and websites) I've read which are attemping to "disprove" science are pretty weak in their understanding of the "science" side of things.

I think our differences lay in that "interpretation card".

"If the Bible came from God, then it can have no errors, since God cannot lie. If there are errors (lies) in teh Bible, then it did not come from God, and we are left up to our own minds to determine what is "truth" and what is not. That is a philosophically and theologically indefensible position."

And I have a problem with this statement because it sets people up to see the bible as false - since there ARE some apparent inconsistencies. Like John said - there just ARE places in the bible where things appear to conflict. Our wanting them not to be so doesn't make them go away!

I can't tell you how many times I've seen good Christian teens go off to college armed (they thought) with a solid Sunday school education only to have their faith dashed by some hippy-like professor who seems to have an explanation for everything - explanations that they did not even know exist. Like the first time he/she hears about Gilgamesh and the fact that it is thought to antedate the bible.

Like I said I'm not trying to bash traditional doctrine - and this kind of discussion doesn't always come up often - but in MY field it does!

 

Pastor Larry -

I own one of those PH.D's that Charles is talking about. I have studied biology as well as astrophysics for many years. I am also a Christian as well as a member of the SBC (have been since I was 16.)

I can tell you with certainty that the earth is older than 6,000 years. I could point to a million proofs (and I mean that literally) that the earth is billions of years old. Young Earth arguments do not help the Christian cause. Instead, it causes us to be viewed as simpletons, without reason or logic, and harms rather than helps Christian witness. After all, the Church for millenia held that the sun rotated around the earth (geocentric theory)rather than what exists - the earth rotates around the sun (heliocentric theory). They based that belief in their misunderstanding of the Bible.

I would implore you to go to http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml and read what Dr. Ross, (a believer in Bible inerrancy and OEC.) another astrophysisist, has written.

There is no reason to believe in the false doctrine of YEC.

 

Sdcoyote, though not directed at me, I appreciate your post, but it should be pointed out that the YEC position isn't a Christian doctrine. It's an interpretation. I don't think anyone here is saying it's a doctrinal issue.

 

Charles,

You don't have to go to some secular college now to get your faith tested. All you have to do is surf the web, go to talk.orgins or other sites, and it can get brutal. As far as creation goes, I think we need to concentrate on the Biblical and theological reasons for what we believe. I think creation research is worthwhile but most people are not prepared to argue with experts on the scientific level.

God's Word trumps scientific knowledge and even if we can't explain every difficulty, theologically we know that God is true, cannot lie, and we need to give God the benefit of the doubt -- that is part of living by faith.

I've run in the same types of circles that you have mentioned -- PhD's, etc who mock YEC. God has to open their eyes. Until He does they will remain blinded to the truth. Sinful unbelief holds these people back, not YEC.

Andy

 

John,

I dunno- I know of some people on here that seem to believe that there are simply two alternatives: #1. YEC, or #2. Naturalistic Evolution.

To some, if one does not strictly adhere to YEC's 6,000-10,000 year creation date, or 24-hour, literal "days"- their salvation comes into question.

 

Nor do I. But what I was saying was indefensible is the idea that truth and fact are two different things. They are not. Truth, by definition, is fact. and fact, by definition, is truth.

I have not gotten into that discussion for sake of time. There are numerous resources available that give clear, solid answers for those "problems." In the end, your (or my) inability to understand does not mean it is not true. And I think that is the point. You are assuming that becaus etwo different authors says "different" things, that they cannot both be true. But we admittedly do not have all the facts. Therefore, we are the ones that are unqualified to speak on the matter. God, who inspired it, is imminently qualified.

I do not assume that an error is a lie. I assume that the knowingly false statement is a lie. For God to have verbally inspired knowingly false statements would make God a liar. So the options are that God did not inspire the Bible if there are errors in it (and no matter how "minor" the error might be, it is still an error); God did inspired the Bible and the verses that say it is impossible for God to lie are indeed lies and thus self-refuted; or God inspired the Bible and there are no errors in it.

Again, we have to decide what the authority is. Can I, with a mind affected and darkened by sin, really sit in judgment on whether or not the inspired word of the God who cannot lie contains errors? I do not believe that I can.

 

That's not the case at all. News agencies often report "all the facts", but do so in a manner that does not reflect the truth. Being truthful and being factual are not synonymous.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that two differing Gospel authors can give differing facts, but both authors are true.

Glad to hear it. We agree on this point.

No one is saying that there are any statements in sctipture which were made being knowingly false.

Whoa, we're required to accept divine inspiration of scripture. But to require "verbal inspiration" is adding to that doctrine. Inspired by God does not mean dictated by God. The authors of scripture were not mere stenotypists. To assume that "inspired" equates to "dictated" is to proceed from a false presumption.

And at the end of it, we still have verses that, on factual basis alone, will contradict each other, but on the basis of truth, they do not. To say that the Bible does not have errors in fact is to believe a lie. Why do we need to lie to ourselves in order to believe something about the Bible which we're not required to believe?

We're ot required to believe the Bible is inerrant in regards to fact. We're required to do so in regards to truth. No one here has said anything besides the assertion that the Bible is 100% true.

 

To Charles and SDC,

LEt me make several quick points. First, my background is liberal arts and theology.

I agree. 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.

But again, their faith was destroyed, not because of the knowledge of the other side, but becuase of their own ignorance.

I don't konw many young earth creationists that would dispute that. There is a dark side of us that use Ussher's misguided chronology to affirm a 6000 year old date, but few do and most of us cringe when someone says that.

But when the presuppositions that support those "proofs" are removed, the evidence falls flat. The YEC and the OEC have the same evidence. They interpret it differently becuase they bring a different set of presuppositions to the table.

Absolutely, but the scientific also has held different views over the years that have proven to be false, such as just happened last week with the galaxies and their expectation.

There is great reason and logic behind the science of biblical creationism and those who believe the Bible literally have no need to take a back seat to others.

I have read Ross before, for the first time almost 10 years ago when it first came out. I have studied the material from that side of the argument. I simply cannot share their presuppositions. Ross's book was absolutely loaded with problems, and too many people dove in headfirst becuase he attempted to assuage the scientific consciences while using theology. (BTW, I would dispute that Ross can truly believe in inerrancy, in any orthodox sense.)

IMO, we have to take more seriously the underpinnings of the philosophy that leads to the presuppositions. When we ignore the presuppositions, we run the risk of arriving at well spoken positions, albeit ones that have no solid foundation.

I have yet to see one solid reason to abandon the normal reading of the Bible. There are, on the other hand, many reasons, both scientific and theological, not to. There is simply no actual scientific reason to not believe the biblical account of a young earth creation.

I do not mean to insult anyone here, or to imply a lack of respect towards you or anyone of your persuasion. I do believe, however, that we have given way too much ground to people who have no foundations themselves. We have sold ourselves down the river of academic respect while failing to acknowledge that the academics themselves are floating on a sea with no moorings.


Second, there are numberous well credentialed PhDs who are young earth creationists and with good reason.

[quote