To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

Also

 

Also

(As for the Gen 2 thing, read the whole article I posted on that which talks about the verb "formed" and its tense.)

David, as you say, I am sure you could go on and on - these type of alleged contradictions are posted on numerous skeptic sites such as the infidel site. And they have been addressed by biblical scholars. Sometimes it's hard to believe I'm on a Baptist board.

I don't have time for this; if I can find the answers, why can't you?

 

Marcia:

You find your answers in a rewriting of the texts. Its almost humorous to watch you do this. You simply will not deal with the text as it is written. You are so committed to a doctrine that you prefer a rewriting that can fit everything into your system.

In Matthew Jesus is taken to Egypt then to Nazareth. In Luke Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem and then right back to Nazareth. That is the way the two accounts are written. So much for consistency.

Do me one favor. Read the text and not every thing written about it. You absolutely refuse to even look at these passages as they are, yet you are the one who says the bible is perfect in every regard. What you mean is, we can make it perfect if we re-write it to fit our doctrine.

You think I want to have a Bible that is not perfect? Of course not. If it was everyone who could read could see it without having to jump through hoops. But it is not perfect and that is OK. God is.

I won't continue in this rediculous debate any longer. So have a wonderful Christmas, and we'll find something else to argue about later on.

God bless you Marcia. I know you love the Lord and I pray whatever ministries you are involved with will be very fruitful

Dave

End of discussion.

 

Hi Marcia,

KJV Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

There is a minor problem here but it's in the way that the KJV (and quite a few others) translate the "tense" of the word "formed" in this this verse. It hasn't so much to do with the meaning of the word but it's "tense".

Hebrew has no past, present or future verb tenses only perfect and imperfect. Perfect indicates completed action, imperfect indicates incomplete action. The word "Formed" is imperfect in the Hebrew.

The nuance of the perfect and imperfect "tense" is unknowable from the Hebrew and must be determined by the translators.

I believe the NIV has it close to it's correct form.

NIV Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

"having formed" would have been the best in my opinion, the idea is that the action of the creation of the animals was an incomplete action until Adam gave the animals names.

HankD translation:

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air, brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

HankD

 

Here's my take of the Genesis account, using only the KJV and the text as written.
Gen 2:8 is the key.
In Genesis one, we have the chronological order of creation.
Then in Gen 2:8 God plants a garden, and puts man in it. Then before Adam's very eyes God causes to grow,right out of the ground, every good and pleasing tree, including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and of Evil. God also causes a river to flow out of Eden, which then divides into four major rivers. Still while Adam is watching. Then God tells Adam what he may eat, and what he may not. Then in front of Adam's eyes again, God forms from the ground every kind of animal, brings them to him to name, and to choose a mate. No suitable mate is found. So God causes Adam to sleep, performs "surgery" and viola! Woman!. Then they, both Adam and Woman, go on to play in the garden. End of chapter.
This was a special creation account for Adam's benefit. Why? So he would know first hand that it was God who made him. It was God who made his wife. It was God who made his garden. It was God who made all the animals. It was God who told him what to eat and what not to eat. It was God who told him the consequences for eating the wrong things. Why didn't God do this for Eve? Because it was God who gave resposibility to Adam to tend the garden, teach/lead his wife. Everything was done in Gen 2:8-25 for Adam's benefit.
What happened in Genesis 1 is simply as someone else said, the rough outline. But in Genesis ch 2:8-25, it is not about creation. It is about Adam. The first man. What God created in Gen 2:8-25 happened in the garden only, for Adam's benefit.

BTW Gen 2:4-7 is a simple summary of the creation account in Genesis 1. It is obvious that Genesis 2:1-3 is the "finishing touch" of creation.

Next question David?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

David said,"2. Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and going to Nazareth, after the journey to Egypt, to avoid the dangers presented by Herod's sons. Luke has Joseph and Mary being from Nazareth. They go to Bethlehem to register for the tax and as a result Jesus is born in the manger, then they return to Nazareth with no journey to Egypt. A literal reading of the text makes it very hard to synchronise the two stories."
_________________________________________________

David, why is it "very hard to syncronize"?
Just take your time, read slowly and ask God for wisdom.
Jas 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

With respect, if I may address your issue.
First, I use only one book. No commentators. Just the text. Ok?
1st mistake. Matthew does not say that Joseph and Mary "living" in Bethelehem. It simply says Jesus was born there. Joseph and Mary may have stayed there a few days, until it was time to take Jesus to the temple, to fulfil the law concerning a firstborn son. It was during this time that the wise men showed up. Then they returned to Nazereth, their hometown. Granted Luke 2:29 says nothing about the trip to Egypt. It doesn't have to in order to be accurate. Mark has Jesus just popping onto the scene in the desert. John has Jesus as existing from all eternity past. Does that mean He was NOT born at all? Literally speaking? Of course not. So we must accept the witness as true, even though one man gives more details than the other. But I digress.
Matthew explains how it was that Jesus fulfilled the saying "Out of Egypt have I called my Son." Matthews focus throughout his account of the life of Jesus is as the promised Jewish Messiah. So he goes into great detail. If you will notice the details of Matthew, you will see that with each detail, he gives a fulfilled prophecy. This is not so hard.
Something which may help you here is a thorough study of fulfilled prophecies listed in each of the four gospel writers. It will give you a very clear idea as to each writer's focus on the many faceted sides of our Diamond. (He IS a Rock, no?)
This in no way harms literal readings of Scipture.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim and Marcia, thanks for your replies to my posts.

I think Jim at least accepts that there are times when a non-literal or allegorical meaning must be assigned to Scripture where the context demands. For instance, if we were to assign a literal meaning to the verses where Jesus talks about being the Bread of Life etc, Jn 6:32-41, 50-58, the Last Supper eg Mk 14:22-24, plus I Peter 3:21, we would have to believe in transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration and would end up being Catholic. No, instead what we do is we interpret these passages in the light of what we believe to be revealed by the rest of Scripture. That is all I'm doing.

Marcia, in response to your question re the destruction of the Amalekites, I quite simply do not believe that God would have ordered that, for the reasons of incompatibility referred to in the above paragraph and my earlier posts, and therefore I am unable to take a literal view of this passage but, rather, am bound to interpret it allegorically. Someone asked how I pick and choose that; well, it's quite easy: as I've said, if the literal meaning of a passage conflicts with the revelation of God incarnated in Jesus Christ, then that passage cannot be interpreted literally.

Why is this important to me? Putting to one side for the moment the (very) important issue of what kind of God is revealed by a particular interpretation of the 'genocide' passages, let me say that if they are to be taken literally, it makes very little practical difference to me in my day to day walk with the Lord: if these massacres did happen as historical facts, they happened over three thousand years ago, I don't know any of the parties involved personally and, frankly, accordingly, it doesn't affect me one iota. If, however, I interpret those passages allegorically as a warning that God does not tolerate the slightest bit of sin in my life and I am therefore to do my utmost with His help to extirpate all unGodliness from within me, then that is a clarion call to holy living for me and most assuredly DOES make a massive difference to my life.

So, you see, not only is the allegorical interpretation more consistent with the rest of Scripture with particular reference to Christ revealed therein, it is also far more 'useful', 'improving', inspiring and edifying...

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go off and celebrate this wonderful fact of the Incarnation: a Blessed Christmas to you all and see you in 2005!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I've always thought the Magi in Mt. arrived around 2 years after Jesus' birth (cf. Mt. 2:7 w/ 2:16). It does seem from Matthew's account that the Magi saw Jesus in Bethlehem, perhaps during the yearly feast of the Passover when Jesus & his family were around Jerusalem (cf. Lk. 2:41)? And so it may have been during one of these trips that Joseph was warned to flee to Egypt.

Dave, I think Mt. 5 doesn't necessarily contradict the OT law, but rather strengthens it to the point of condemning just about everyone who may have thought they were blameless in all the externals.

Dave, back to your assertion that the OT authors didn't always write what God wanted to be written (i.e., in your own words, they attributed "to God something he might not wanted to have been given credit for"), to me this seems close to being incompatible with 2 Ti. 3:16 that says all Scripture is God-breathed. How do you reconcile this?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

About Gn. 2:19 and "formed", has anyone looked into the possibility of the narrator addressing his audience with this YIQTOL form verb, which is predominantly used as the default form of verbs in discourse?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Back to the original topic

The Word of God stands without error ...

 

To the thread's present state:

To read into the Genesis account what was not intended to be understood by the population of the time is to move away from logic and towards reasoning that limits reality. (1)

Sticking to Genesis. Chapter 2 only indicated that there was a time when plants and animals "of the field" were finished ... (2)
The logic of the passage then should indicate that the domestication of life came after the original creation (3).


(1) Does milk comes from cows or from milk cartons? Both are true, but stating that milk comes from a carton would indicate a different view of reality. And to state that milk comes from a carton when the farmer just told the country boy that milk comes from a cow ... would mark you as out of place ...
(2) I think this is supported by modern archeology & biology, just a logical statement ...
(3) The original intent of the text was to be understood by farmers & semi-nomadic herders ...

 

</font>[/QUOTE]The text you are refering to does not say that. In Matthew it clearly and plainly says Judas gave the money back and then hung himself. In Acts it says the chief priests bought a field but DOES NOT SAY that is where he was buried. Once again, I stay with the text as it is written and you find a way to make it say what it does not.

Dave

 

Thank you Bluefalcon for honest discussion.Timothy tells us to rightly divide the Word of God, so please, just get out a good study bible so you can look at Matthew 5 and see where in each reference where Jesus says,"You have heard it said but I say..." you will see a reference to the OT passage Jesus is referring to. The most gripping one is where He says, "You have heard it said you must hate your enemies and love your neighbors, BUT I SAY you must love your enemies..." If that does not make the picture clear nothing will for those who are more concerned with defending their manmade doctrine of biblical infallability more important than the Lordship of Jesus Christ. He is the criterion by which we rightly divide, or interpret all scripture. If he is the fullfillment of all the Law and the Prophets then he is the means by which we interpret them correctly, for He is THE WORD MADE FLESH, the FINAL WORD.

In spite of all I read hear I know without doubt that my position is in keeping with the historical truths, and in keeping with the long history of genuine Christian discipleship. Using the bible to justify positions that go contrary to the teaching of Jesus is blasphemy, for it challenges the Lordship of Jesus. Think about it please before responding.

God Bless,
Dave

 

With all due respect you are not staying within the context of the story as it is told in Matthew. The story in Matthew begins in Bethlehem. The story in Luke begins in Nazareth. The story in Matthew clearly has them settling in Nazareth to avoid the possible persecution that might come from Herod's sons and also in order to fullfill OT prophecy. If we take both stories(Matthew's and Luke's) literally they do not synchronise. This is my point. The Bible is not perfect (meaning totally consistent) in the way it tells us about the birth of Jesus. But so what? Who knows which account is the actual event? What matters is how the story concludes. In that regard they are all consisitent. They all agree on the one fact about Jesus that matters most of all. HE was raised from the dead and is alive today as the Life Giving Spirit of God to all who will believe.

God Bless,
Dave

 

Thanks for your honest answer, Matt. I still have a question: if you see the killing of the Amalekites as allegory, do you also see Samuel's words to Saul as allegory? Do you see all the words from God condemning Saul for his disobedience "in the matter of the Amalekites" as allegory? Do you think Saul and Samuel were real people? There is no hermeneutcial principle that allows 1 Sam 15 or related passages to be allegory.

If you believe that in light of how you see Jesus that God could not have had the Amalekites killed, then do you believe in a place of eternal punishment for those who are not in Christ?

 

You are not paying attention to the entire context and wording of chapter two.
Gen 2:5 "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth AND THERE WAS NO MAN TO TILL THE GROUND..."

Gen 2:18 and following:" THen the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him a helper fit for him. SO out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air..."

Once again, I stick with the text as plainly written, you guys re-write it to fit into your doctrine. Sorry but it written as it is written.

Dave

 

Dave, The English text here does not reflect the Hebrew underlying the English text in terms of the time continuum.

Hebrew verbs tenses are clearly not functionally aligned with English tenses. This is one of the most difficult aspects of Hebrew for the non-semitic mind to grasp.

Hebrew does not even have a present tense and must transform a verb into a noun or infinitive or adjectival participle (modern Hebrew) to approximate the present tense.

There is no past, present or future tense in Hebrew.

HankD

 

Dave, here is a Torah Hebrew-English translation from an online Jewish source:

The word "now" (added) and "had formed" work together to simulate as best as can be the grammatical function of the imperfect verb "formed" (Hebrew YATSAR).

The animal creation was incomplete until the man gave them names.

There are difficulties in the Scripture, but this is not one of them.


HankD

 

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air, brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Hank, I think your letting your views creep in here. The "formed" is a yiqtol (wayitsar), as are most of the verbs in this narrative. The appropriate tranlsation is, "and God did this, and God did that..." It is not a dependent clause, and doesn't fitting with your participial translation of "having formed".

And if we look at verse 18 the we see that God saw that the man needed a "helper". The point here is that God is making, not that Adam is naming.

 

OK Charles that is your opinion and I disagree with you as well as Dave.

God brought the animals to Adam so Adam was helping to put the finishing touch on God's creation. That is my opinion concerning the verb.

HankD