ELCA: Is the bible inerrant?

[Jabronie]

I have a quick question. I was talking to an ELCA pastor today and she said that Lutherans don't believe that the bible is inerrant.

Is this true? Or did I misunderstand her? Or is my definition of 'inerrant' (as a Catholic) different than hers (as a Lutheran)? Just curious; any answers are appreciated.

Thanks and God Bless!

[RegularGuy]

The ELCA does not insist that its members believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. That is, we do not teach that the Bible contains no errors in matters of science and history, or that it is without contradiction. A simple read-through of the Bible shows that this is not the case.

However, the ELCA, like Martin Luther himself, holds the Bible in the highest regard.

The ELCA constitution says:

2.02.c The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.

2.03. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.

You can see the document here:

http://www.elca.org/secretary/constitutions/ConstitutionsBylawsandContinuingResolutions2005.pdf

Hope that helps.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

The answer you get from ELCA people might very from person to person, church to church, etc. And I am not real familiar with the formal stance though Regular seems to have shown that already anyways, I just wanted to offer where I have come (how close or far I am from the ELCA as a whole is debatable):

The Bible may not always offer "historical" truth. This can seem probablematic in a society where the idea of fact is so important. But the Bible I think does not err in TRUTH. Because there are truths that go above a historical truth. John's gospel has the passover on a different day than the synoptic gospels, therefore Jesus dies on the day of preparation. But this is speaking to a greater truth about the death of Jesus. That while the passover lambs are being slaughtered in the temple Jesus is dying on the cross. It is what one of my Professors would call "theological truth". This is just one example I think of the difference of what is commonly thought of as truth or fact and what I believe the Bible presents as truth. And in this means, I do not think it lies or errs but is above the truths we normally like to hold up.
In terms of contradictions, again, I think there is a difference between contradiction and paradox. Look just at the nature of Christ, true man-true God. Or the trinity, one and three being the same? Though 1=3 is not a contradiction, nor Christ fully a man and yet completely God. Its paradox.
But perhaps since that is sortof where I am coming from it really doesn't help your question about the ELCA, but it is coming from an ELCA person. But I could say it speaks to how I understand and believe the ELCA statement written above by regular.
Hope it helps, if not, sorry. Grace and Peace to you.
-Doulos_tou_Kuriou

[Jabronie]

It sounds like we pretty much believe the same thing. From my point of view, the Bible isn't necessarily inerrant in science or history, but it is inerrant on faith and morals.

Thanks for the replies!

[Confess]

Deleted Post Due To The Fact That I Am An Illegal In This Forum Lol!


(((((I do not have my liberal card)))))) LOL!!!!

[RegularGuy]

You know, this kind of misrepresentation just makes me sad. I guess this is why we have an ELCA/ELCIC subforum, so we don't have to constantly fight this kind of thing.

The ELCA does not teach that the Bible is errant. We simply do not insist that it is inerrant. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

Personally, I'm glad not to be an inerrantist. I don't have to harmonize the various Gospel accounts, or explain why the Bible doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of science, archeology and history.

[AngelusSax]

I think that something that may be a better way of explaining the ELCA position on the Bible is something akin to:
Theologically inerrant, once we cut away the details to find the actual theological point, realizing that some places and names and events may have incorrect numbers, symbolism meant over literalism, etc.

But that's just a mouthful to say... Easier to make us sound like we're burining Bibles and mocking God by saying we teach errancy.

[KagomeShuko]

It was put once that it is a book of faith and not a book of history. However, that doesn't mean that the Bible is always inconsistent with history - it just means that the truth we find it is theological and faithful. It is God's word - but what history may report may not say the same thing as the Bible (many times due to cultural interpretations and different ways of stating things).

[BigNorsk]

It sounds like we pretty much believe the same thing. From my point of view, the Bible isn't necessarily inerrant in science or history, but it is inerrant on faith and morals.

Thanks for the replies!

Actually the Catholic Church's stance is quite different from the ELCA's, the difference shows up in this part that was quoted.

2.03. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.


It is in the authoritative source and norm that the ELCA directly conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church.

It gets back to the doctrine of sola Scriptura where the Bible is the source and norm and not Tradition.

Marv

[KagomeShuko]

Actually the Catholic Church's stance is quite different from the ELCA's, the difference shows up in this part that was quoted.



It is in the authoritative source and norm that the ELCA directly conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church.

It gets back to the doctrine of sola Scriptura where the Bible is the source and norm and not Tradition.

Marv
BigNorsk,

So true, but there are some more liberal Catholics, so they believe more like the ELCA!

[RegularGuy]

It is in the authoritative source and norm that the ELCA directly conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church.

It gets back to the doctrine of sola Scriptura where the Bible is the source and norm and not Tradition.

Marv

Well, there's also the question of the canon, since the ELCA doesn't recognize the deuterocanonical books as being on the same par as the canonical Scriptures.

[KagomeShuko]

Confess is not currently a member of the ELCA. Oops, she didn't ask the question, sorry, my browser said that she did!

Oh, wait, Jabronie asked this question - how odd that my browser said confess when I answered. Um, I don't know about Jabronie because I haven't seen his profile or his posts!

[ProfessorMom]

Confess is not currently a member of the ELCA. I have found she does not understand the teachings of the ELCA (everything I was taught in the ELCA, as I was raised ELCA) , either, just from reading her posts.

Oh, wait, Jabronie asked this question - how odd that my browser said confess when I answered. Um, I don't know about Jabronie because I haven't seen his profile or his posts!Thank you.

[Edial]

I have a quick question. I was talking to an ELCA pastor today and she said that Lutherans don't believe that the bible is inerrant.

Is this true? Or did I misunderstand her? Or is my definition of 'inerrant' (as a Catholic) different than hers (as a Lutheran)? Just curious; any answers are appreciated.

Thanks and God Bless!
I am ELCA and I believe that the Bible is inerrant.

ELCA does not appear to address that point, so it gives way for many views on it.

To say that the Bible might contain historical or scientific errors is not a fair statement, since in 2000 years no one could prove any of the presumed errors.

So, looking back at time while many great minds tried proving the Bible to contain errors yet failed, I find to be practically justified in saying that the Bible contains no errors, since inspiration of God in itself cannot have anything but truth in all aspects of it's presentation.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[UberLutheran]

The Bible has a very great amount of truth in it.

Some of what the Bible states actually happened.

[Edial]

The Bible has a very great amount of truth in it.

Some of what the Bible states actually happened.
In that case you would not disagree that other things could have happened.

[UberLutheran]

In that case you would not disagree that other things could have happened.

Not.Going.There.

[Edial]

Not.Going.There.
There is no place to go, really.
One cannot prove that what Bible claims happened did not happen.

One could disbelieve, true.
But that is a personal matter.

Thanks,
Ed

[UberLutheran]

There is no place to go, really.
One cannot prove that what Bible claims happened did not happen.

One could disbelieve, true.
But that is a personal matter.

Thanks,
Ed

You're welcome.

UL

[jcj3803]

There is no place to go, really.
One cannot prove that what Bible claims happened did not happen.

One could disbelieve, true.
But that is a personal matter.

Ok, I'm WELS/LCMS by background, but currently a regular visitor at an ELCA church, so I think I'm allowed to post here. If not, sorry, I"ll just lurk.

A question on inerrancy that has stuck with me was posed by a preschooler:

"When did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos?"

Anybody have a canonical answer to that? I've never asked a pastor. Thanks.

[Edial]

Ok, I'm WELS/LCMS by background, but currently a regular visitor at an ELCA church, so I think I'm allowed to post here. If not, sorry, I"ll just lurk.

A question on inerrancy that has stuck with me was posed by a preschooler:

"When did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos?"

Anybody have a canonical answer to that? I've never asked a pastor. Thanks.
Hi there. :)

The Bible presents that prior to the flood the Earth was quiet different than we see it now.
The global flood caused much damage and change to Earth.
Also, there is a strong indication that there was no rain prior to the Noah's Flood.

Much was different.:)

The objection that you heard is one of the common objections that are circulated from skeptic sites.

I would really recommend this site http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html concerning the answer to this specific question.

I do not agree with everything that they present in other pages, HOWEVER they are solid in many ways.

If you know how to discern, you'll have fun. :)

Please let me know your opinion.

Thanks,
Ed

[KagomeShuko]

Ok, I'm WELS/LCMS by background, but currently a regular visitor at an ELCA church, so I think I'm allowed to post here. If not, sorry, I"ll just lurk.

A question on inerrancy that has stuck with me was posed by a preschooler:

"When did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos?"

Anybody have a canonical answer to that? I've never asked a pastor. Thanks.
Yep, you are always welcome to come ask questions and fellowship :)

You just aren't allowed to debate, which you have not done, so you are very welcome to our views.

I can honestly say that there will be many different views from different people in the ELCA about the flood.

One point to remember is that every culture/religion has a great flood story, so it is very likely that it really did happen.

I, myself, tend to think science and the Bible often do go hand in hand - the eras match the days of creation quite well. What happened to Pangaea? Did it rain then? I don't know. Did it so happen that when the flood happened the continents were still a Pangaea - very possible.

However, the main thing is that God did it and our faith is in God and in Christ. Is the flood story essential to salvation - no it isn't :)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[IowaLutheran]

"When did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos?"


A brilliant question!

Its amazing to see the non-Biblical answers that fundamentalists come up with to answer questions like that.

Case in point: How do fundamentalists explain Genesis 4:17 ("And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch"). Now, up to that point, Genesis has said absolutely nothing about women other than Eve. So, how does the Ryrie Study Bible (a fundamentalist study Bible, the footnotes to which are fundamentalist/dispensationalist) explain away that one? The footnote to that verse says that his wife was "[o]bviously a daughter of Adam. She may have been Cain's sister, niece, or even grand-niece. Since Adam's and Eve's genetic systems had no mutant genes in them, such a marriage would not be dangerous as it is today."

Its ironic how these people claim to be sola scriptura, and then have to make up ridiculous theories for which there is no Biblical evidence, such as "no mutant genes", to make the Bible fit their belief systems.

[Edial]

A brilliant question!

Its amazing to see the non-Biblical answers that fundamentalists come up with to answer questions like that.

Case in point: How do fundamentalists explain Genesis 4:17 ("And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch"). Now, up to that point, Genesis has said absolutely nothing about women other than Eve. So, how does the Ryrie Study Bible (a fundamentalist study Bible, the footnotes to which are fundamentalist/dispensationalist) explain away that one? The footnote to that verse says that his wife was "[o]bviously a daughter of Adam. She may have been Cain's sister, niece, or even grand-niece. Since Adam's and Eve's genetic systems had no mutant genes in them, such a marriage would not be dangerous as it is today."

Its ironic how these people claim to be sola scriptura, and then have to make up ridiculous theories for which there is no Biblical evidence, such as "no mutant genes", to make the Bible fit their belief systems.
And fundamentalists make many mistakes as well as good points.
Yet objectively speaking, they are usually pretty good at such things.

But concerning the quote of Cain's wife, are you saying that he was not his sister or niece?
If so, who was Cain's wife in your view?
I would really be interested knowing your opinion.

Thanks,
Ed

[progressivegal]

A brilliant question!

Its amazing to see the non-Biblical answers that fundamentalists come up with to answer questions like that.

Case in point: How do fundamentalists explain Genesis 4:17 ("And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch"). Now, up to that point, Genesis has said absolutely nothing about women other than Eve. So, how does the Ryrie Study Bible (a fundamentalist study Bible, the footnotes to which are fundamentalist/dispensationalist) explain away that one? The footnote to that verse says that his wife was "[o]bviously a daughter of Adam. She may have been Cain's sister, niece, or even grand-niece. Since Adam's and Eve's genetic systems had no mutant genes in them, such a marriage would not be dangerous as it is today."

Its ironic how these people claim to be sola scriptura, and then have to make up ridiculous theories for which there is no Biblical evidence, such as "no mutant genes", to make the Bible fit their belief systems.
For the record, a book I read as a teenager that was sort of a "Catholic Answer book for teenagers" (The actually title was "Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?") said the same exact thing.

[KagomeShuko]

A brilliant question!

Its amazing to see the non-Biblical answers that fundamentalists come up with to answer questions like that.

Case in point: How do fundamentalists explain Genesis 4:17 ("And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch"). Now, up to that point, Genesis has said absolutely nothing about women other than Eve. So, how does the Ryrie Study Bible (a fundamentalist study Bible, the footnotes to which are fundamentalist/dispensationalist) explain away that one? The footnote to that verse says that his wife was "[o]bviously a daughter of Adam. She may have been Cain's sister, niece, or even grand-niece. Since Adam's and Eve's genetic systems had no mutant genes in them, such a marriage would not be dangerous as it is today."

Its ironic how these people claim to be sola scriptura, and then have to make up ridiculous theories for which there is no Biblical evidence, such as "no mutant genes", to make the Bible fit their belief systems.
Yes, what is your view here? Who was Cain's wife? Honestly, to me, you rant here does not make sense.

[IowaLutheran]

Yes, what is your view here? Who was Cain's wife? Honestly, to me, you rant here does not make sense.

I have no idea who Cain's wife was. My point is simply that in order to justify the view that those portions of Genesis are literal historical truth, facts and assumptions must be added on top of the Biblical record.

[KagomeShuko]

I have no idea who Cain's wife was. My point is simply that in order to justify the view that those portions of Genesis are literal historical truth, facts and assumptions must be added on top of the Biblical record.
So, you have a problem with something in a fundamental Bible study that almost all Christian denominations say might have happened? Um. . .what was your point in posting, then?

[IowaLutheran]

I apologize for not being able to communicate my thoughts in a way that I thought was germane to the conversation.

I've primarily lurked here without posting much and I think I'll take this as my cue to go back to the other forums where I primarily hang out.

[jcj3803]

So, you have a problem with something in a fundamental Bible study that almost all Christian denominations say might have happened? Um. . .what was your point in posting, then?

Um, I'm not sure that's the point here.

I think what we are saying or implying is that, from a critical perspective, a number of stories in Genesis are, at best, incomplete. And some of the explanations to fill in the "gaps" are incompatible with our current level of historical and scientific knowledge.

I accept that a great flood happened - as you said, it's in a lot of cultures' "mythology". And I can accept that Cain's wife was from outside the garden or a niece or whatever.

While the Bible can be inerrant, Genesis appears incomplete. And if it's incomplete, is it really inerrant? By inerrant, I am using the fundamentalist "every single word is literally true" definition. But maybe that's just arguing semantics...

[Edial]

Um, I'm not sure that's the point here.

I think what we are saying or implying is that, from a critical perspective, a number of stories in Genesis are, at best, incomplete. And some of the explanations to fill in the "gaps" are incompatible with our current level of historical and scientific knowledge.

I accept that a great flood happened - as you said, it's in a lot of cultures' "mythology". And I can accept that Cain's wife was from outside the garden or a niece or whatever.

While the Bible can be inerrant, Genesis appears incomplete. And if it's incomplete, is it really inerrant? By inerrant, I am using the fundamentalist "every single word is literally true" definition. But maybe that's just arguing semantics...
But Genesis is indeed incomplete, as far as collection of all the events is concerned.
It just presents one story line.

And it claims to be inerrant within that story line. In other words it claims that everything that it states is absolutely true.

Now, the Biblical storyline that is definitelly mapped in one direction, does touch some other areas in a secondary way.

For example, it presents Adam as a "first man" in 1Cor.15:46,47.
Some others have views that it is not so.

It is a matter of which views one accepts.

I personally, accept Biblical view.
Not because I know much, but because Christ believed that.

I guess I'm playing safe. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[TheCosmicGospel]

I am looking for the Scrfipture where the scribes and chief priests are arguing where Jesus is from. Can you help me?

The answer wasn't one over the other. It was both! But their answer prejudiced them and kept them from seeing who He really was.

Genesis moves in a similar fashion. We get hooked on "our answers",i.e., the flood, Cain's wife, six days that we forget the real purpose of the Bible is not to tell us every little bit of human history or our Bible would be a 100 volume set. Think how lost we would be then.

I am struck by the connection with other mythologies that also described a universal flood. Like duh, it hit everyone everywhere. But many take it as, see, the Bible therefore has its myths too. Just like the scribes. Where is Jesus from?

I am not trying to preach to anyone here. It is just that we make too much out of our curiosity. I think Paul tells us what to do with those "gaps" in the Bible in 1 Tim. 6:3-5.

What the Bible does notd eclare, we only can hold opinions. Those very opinions won't save or dam anyone. But we can lose our brotherliness if we hold on to them too strongly as to become divisive. That's what I get out of the Tim. verse.

We are not here to solve God, but only to serve Him.

Cheers,
Cosmic

[Edial]

I am looking for the Scrfipture where the scribes and chief priests are arguing where Jesus is from. Can you help me?
You mean John 8:13 and on?


The answer wasn't one over the other. It was both! But their answer prejudiced them and kept them from seeing who He really was.

Genesis moves in a similar fashion. We get hooked on "our answers",i.e., the flood, Cain's wife, six days that we forget the real purpose of the Bible is not to tell us every little bit of human history or our Bible would be a 100 volume set. Think how lost we would be then.

I am struck by the connection with other mythologies that also described a universal flood. Like duh, it hit everyone everywhere. But many take it as, see, the Bible therefore has its myths too. Just like the scribes. Where is Jesus from?

I am not trying to preach to anyone here. It is just that we make too much out of our curiosity. I think Paul tells us what to do with those "gaps" in the Bible in 1 Tim. 6:3-5.

What the Bible does notd eclare, we only can hold opinions. Those very opinions won't save or dam anyone. But we can lose our brotherliness if we hold on to them too strongly as to become divisive. That's what I get out of the Tim. verse.

We are not here to solve God, but only to serve Him.

Cheers,
Cosmic

Agreed. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[Willy]

A quick answer to the original question is "no." A Lutheran view of the Bible is that it is transparent to the Gospel. It is not the good news. It is the manger for the good news. The issue is not what is the nature of the Bible, but whether it is at the center of the church's proclamation and teaching.

[KagomeShuko]

Willy :sigh:

You just don't get it - we may not say inerrant, but your answer is not correct.

[RegularGuy]

Actually, I think Willy has it.

Luther himself used a 'canon with the canon.' The Bible conveys the Word of God, but the Word of God is not confined to the Bible. The great value of the Bible is that it reveals the Gospel to us; it shows us Jesus.

It teaches the truth, but does not exhaust the truth. Truth is not limited to facticity.

[IowaLutheran]

Here is the ELCA's statement, which includes the pertinent quote from Luther:

http://www.elca.org/communication/images/graybullet.gif How Do Lutherans Look upon the Bible? To borrow a phrase from Luther, the Bible is "the manger in which the Word of God is laid." While Lutherans recognize differences in the way the Bible should be studied and interpreted, it is accepted as the primary and authoritative witness to the church's faith. Written and transcribed by many authors over a period of many centuries, the Bible bears remarkable testimony to the mighty acts of God in the lives of people and nations. In the Old Testament is found the vivid account of God's covenant relationship to Israel. In the New Testament is found the story of God's new covenant with all of creation in Jesus.
The New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. As such, it is the authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is thus not a definitive record of history or science. Rather, it is the record of the drama of God's saving care for creation throughout the course of history.
http://www.elca.org/communication/brief.html

[Edial]

... The Bible is thus not a definitive record of history or science. Rather, it is the record of the drama of God's saving care for creation throughout the course of history.
This is the part that I truly do not understand.

What is the reason that ELCA carefully presents that history or science in the Bible are not a definitive record when they cannot show even one Biblical event that conflicts with history?

Does anyone know?

Thanks,
Ed

[IowaLutheran]

This is the part that I truly do not understand.

What is the reason that ELCA carefully presents that history or science in the Bible are not a definitive record when they cannot show even one Biblical event that conflicts with history?

Does anyone know?

Thanks,
Ed

You are reading way too much into my statement.

By "definitive" I mean that the Bible does not pretend to give a complete history of the ancient world (or even ancient Israel, for that matter). The Bible itself states as much - the Old Testament repeatedly refers readers to other works which chronicle the history of the ancient kings, and the Gospel of John indicates that there are many more details of Jesus' life that are not recorded in writing.

[Edial]

You are reading way too much into my statement.

By "definitive" I mean that the Bible does not pretend to give a complete history of the ancient world (or even ancient Israel, for that matter). The Bible itself states as much - the Old Testament repeatedly refers readers to other works which chronicle the history of the ancient kings, and the Gospel of John indicates that there are many more details of Jesus' life that are not recorded in writing.
Sometimes I do get paranoid. :)

Yes, the Bible does not reveal the entire history and does refer to other books for it.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[KagomeShuko]

The manger part was fine. The part that said that it's not the Bible that is good news, but what is in the Bible is the good news was fine. But, then, what he states is not that the issue is if the GOOD NEWS is at the center of the teaching and proclamation, but that if the Bible is...huh? If that's what he meant, that's not what he put at all.


The issue is not what is the nature of the Bible, but whether it is at the center of the church's proclamation and teaching.

[Willy]

Certainly what matters is that the Gospel is at the center of the church's preaching and teaching. But my point is that people argue about the nature of the Bible--a very Greek thing to do. It's the same thing that happens to conversations around communion. "What is the nature of the elements." The Bible for the most part comes from a Hebrew mindset which is much earthier. It is much more concerned not about the nature of something but its use. So the church really should not be focused on the nature of the Bible, but rather that the word that comes through the Bible is allowed to be the dynamic word that it is. So the question for the church is whether the Bible is being used, whether it is shaping the church's very life. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant (I would have to deny my brain and the insights of hundreds of years to do so.) But trust me, it shapes the conversations that our congregation has about faith and life. It is at the center of our life together. I preach on it. I make sure that we are studying it, struggling with it all the time.

[Edial]

... I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant (I would have to deny my brain and the insights of hundreds of years to do so.) ...
If there is no proof that the Bible is errant, don't you think that the fact that you depend on your "brain" and "the insights of hundreds of years" in supporting your view that it is errant shows that you simply might find hard to believe that it could be inerrant without supporting it with any facts for it's errancy?

In other words, a statement "I cannot believe it is inerrant" trumps "It is errant because ..."

Thanks,
Ed

[soccerguy2594]

I'm just returning to this forum and havn't read the entire (5 page) thread for this post, but has anyone made the distinction b/t Inerrancy and Infallibility?

The ELCA does not beleive the Bible is inerrant (science and history)

The ELCA does believe the Bible is infallible (in carrying out its purpose).

Sorry if this is a repeat

BTW: I think those are wise words Willy!!!

PS. Ed..just compare the different gospels (or 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles) and you easily be able to see how the Bible is errant even within itself (different timelines, different tellings of the same event)

[Edial]

I'm just returning to this forum and havn't read the entire (5 page) thread for this post, but has anyone made the distinction b/t Inerrancy and Infallibility?)
There is a distinction.
Yet infallibility cannot contain errancy.

The ELCA does not beleive the Bible is inerrant (science and history)

The ELCA does believe the Bible is infallible (in carrying out its purpose).

Sorry if this is a repeat

BTW: I think those are wise words Willy!!!

PS. Ed..just compare the different gospels (or 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles) and you easily be able to see how the Bible is errant even within itself (different timelines, different tellings of the same event)
Don't you think I compared them?

ELCA does not say that the Bible is errant, yet you say it is errant.

If in 2000 years there was no proof of errancy nor of a contradiction, don't you think that your statement that the Bible is errant just reflects your personal view without solid evidence?

Thanks,
Ed

[soccerguy2594]

There is very much a difference b/t infallibility and inerrancy. Errancy can definitely contain infallibility. It is all about the intent. It is not inerrant, but it is infallible in its intent (to bring about faith in Jesus Christ)

Have you check out any of the Reformers? They talk about inerrancy (or lack there of). There has been proof within the church fathers about errancy.

You are correct, the ELCA does not teach that the Biblie is errant...however, that is not what I said. I said that the ELCA doesn't teach that it is IN-errant (what are the implications of that statement my friend?)

If you feel the Bible is inerrant, I have a few questions:
-When did Jesus overturn the tables in the Synagogue? (closer to the beginning or the end of his ministry)
-In what order where the Disciples called?
-When did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus? (before, during, or after baptism)
-How many animals did Noah take on the arc?

(I've got more where these came from)

IF the bible is inerrant then there should only be ONE answer for each of the questions. Right?

I can say that it is my opinion, but it is my opinion b/c I have found them while reading the Bible. In light of my reading of Scripture the Bible is NOT inerrant, but it IS infallible.

[soccerguy2594]

Sorry Ed,

I kind of agree with you that "infallibility cannot contain errancy." However, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "errancy CAN contain infallibility."

[Willy]

You folks are too intelligent for me. Whew! I still believe that the issue is not the nature of the Bible, but rather its use in the community of faith. Inerrrant or infallible--neither is particularly helpful, it seems to me. Soccerguy, it is nice to have you back on this forum. It seems like it's been nigh on a month of Sundays since we've heard from you. This Aristotelian thinking from Edial is wearing my little brain out. Soccerguy, take us out of the land of rationalistic logic. (If A is true, then b and c cannot be true, blah, blah, blah.) Don't get lost in it.

[Edial]

There is very much a difference b/t infallibility and inerrancy. Errancy can definitely contain infallibility. It is all about the intent. It is not inerrant, but it is infallible in its intent (to bring about faith in Jesus Christ)

Have you check out any of the Reformers? They talk about inerrancy (or lack there of). There has been proof within the church fathers about errancy.

You are correct, the ELCA does not teach that the Biblie is errant...however, that is not what I said. I said that the ELCA doesn't teach that it is IN-errant (what are the implications of that statement my friend?)
There are no implications that it is errant, because ELCA cannot prove that it is errant.
ELCA just does not address that.

Why it does not say it is inerrant? I do not know.
Maybe there are pressures from various congregations. But this is just a guess.
I do not know.

If you feel the Bible is inerrant, I have a few questions:
-When did Jesus overturn the tables in the Synagogue? (closer to the beginning or the end of his ministry)

Twice.

-In what order where the Disciples called?
Please show verses. You probably have this already listed, so I do not need to search.
Usually (but not always) the answer to an appeared contradiction is right there.

--When did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus? (before, during, or after baptism)

Here are the texts ...

MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

MK 1:10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

LK 3:21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

JN 1:32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, `The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

"Baptized" (baptizo) literally means "immersed".

Matthew - after immersion.
Mark - after immersion.
Luke - after immersion.
John - not stated when.

After immersion.

One could probably picture it as Jesus standing upto his waist in water after being immersed.

-How many animals did Noah take on the arc?

We do not know how many. I believe 1 pair of unclean kinds and 7 pairs of clean kinds.
Need to double-check.


-I've got more where these came from)

OK.


-IF the bible is inerrant then there should only be ONE answer for each of the questions. Right?
Yes. However we might not necessarily know that answer in all cases.
However, inerrancy means there are no contradictions between the accounts.


-I can say that it is my opinion, but it is my opinion b/c I have found them while reading the Bible. In light of my reading of Scripture the Bible is NOT inerrant, but it IS infallible.
It appears to me that saying "not inerrant" is another way of saying "errant" without needing to show support for it.
ELCA simply does not address this topic.
It is left up to an individual of this synod and his conscience.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Sorry Ed,

I kind of agree with you that "infallibility cannot contain errancy." However, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "errancy CAN contain infallibility."
Both of us should agree that infallibility is all truth.
Fallibility is not.
How could error contain truth, since error is fallible?

Now, one might say that there is some truth in each error.
Well, there is.
But if one mixes the truth with error, the whole mixture is erroneous.

Let's take Jesus Christ as an example.
He said that he is the truth and the way and the light.
The truth means a pure truth, a whole truth with no errors.

And then, the Bible says that all Scripture is "God-breathed" (a closer translation for "inspired").

Now, how could possibly Jesus (who is all truth) breath errors?

This makes no sense.

And to say that Bible has (or might have) errors without proving them is also not fair.

Thanks,
Ed

[soccerguy2594]

(I really need to learn to quote posts...it would make it so much easier)

I would agree that Jesus is the truth, way, and life. The BIBLE is not Jesus. The bible's intent is to enliven faith in Jesus as Savior.

Yes, all scripture is "inspired." I have no issue with that (since it's in the bible and all, hehe). But I think you are mixing the horse with the cart here. Our faith is not in the bible, but in Jesus. We do not worship the Bible. We worship the God that is revealed to us in the Scriptures.

Answer to the Noah Question:
As far as Noah and the animals on the ark:
He took "two of every kind" (Gen 6:19)
AND
He took "seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean" (Gen 7:2)

So, which one is it? Did he take 1 pair (2 of every kind) or did he take 8 pair (7 clean, 1 unclean)

Additional question (related to clean and unclean animals):
Also, why does Noah know anything about Jewish purity law (for eating) when the Law isn't given until Moses and their wilderness Journey (many generations later)?

These are why I can't say that the bible is inerrant...it doesn't even agree with itself!!

However, I agree with Willy! I main issue is not inerrant or infallible, that is all outdated legalistic stuff. The main issue is whether the Bible is the Source and Norm for all the church's teaching and preaching. As long as that is the case....it really doesn't matter how you side in this issue.

The only problem with those who claim biblical inerrancy is that they are elevating the Bible to what it was never intended to be. It is not that which we worship, it is that which reveals that which we worship. Also, those who claim biblical inerrancy feel that if the Bible is errant then it cannot contain ANY truth. This is a modern understanding of what truth is. The bible is less factual truth and more existential truth. Does that make is any less true? NO!

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you...I went home for Easter and have been swamped at school.

Peace,
Soccerguy2594

[KagomeShuko]

First of all, to claim that what we read, TRASNLATIONS are inerrant, that can be a problem. People make mistakes, yet, we've kept the stories and God's word as best as we can. I definitely believe that the ORIGINAL writings were totally inerrant.

ELCA uses the historical-critical method of interpretation of the Bible. It really does make sense to me and explains what you call contradictions. Certain things were written to certain people. Yet, when it comes to basic Christian beliefs, those are the same. Is it really going to matter WHEN things happened as long as we KNOW they happened? What matters about Jesus' baptism is that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

Jesus is the WORD.
The Bible is God's word that is able to give us information and feed our faith.

Noah took 1 pair of all unclean animals and 7 pairs of all clean animals. Noah took two of every kind of animal. Would not 7 pairs include two of every kind?

Go get three of your friends. Make sure each has a pen and some paper. Sit and watch some people at a store or in a park for just a few minutes. Make sure you are watching the same thing/person/people/etc.

All of you then go and write what happened. Compare the writings. Is any single one exactly the same?

Yet, you all watched the exact same thing, didn't you?

Think of things that way. . .

[soccerguy2594]

you are right in saying that the 7 pair would include two of each kind...but that is not what the bible SAYS...in any language!!

Noah is given two sets of instructions...(1) take 1 pair male and female..(2) take 1 pair unclean and 7 pair clean. So, which set of instructions is right?

Also, you have not addressed the issue of how Noah knows anything about the Jewish kosher laws when at this time in the Bible THERE IS NO TORAH!! These are questions that must be addressed if you are going to hold to biblical innerancy!!

I'm not saying that the ORIGINAL texts contained errors...we have no way of knowing that because we don't have any original texts...heck, even the Massoretic Hebrew texts are not "originals"..they even reflect interpretation (seeing as original hebrew had no vowel markings). Anyway...the issue is not with the original texts that each individual author wrote, the issue with inerrancy is with the Bible as we have it (regardless of translations)

Also, if we are going to look at the original authors, then we are using their writings contrary to how they intended them. Heck, even Luke says that he's writing so you can have an "orderly account" (he's not writing so it will be compiled into a larger book with other writings from people he doesn't even know).

Anyway...this conversation about inerrancy is not gonna go anywhere unless you guys address the questions. The only way you are addressing the questions is by imputing your own thoughts into the texts. Come up with a good explanation for why Noah knows anything about the kosher laws when there is no law and I might listen and dialogue. If not, you are just evading the question because it makes you uncomfortable. It makes you uncomfortable b/c it causes you to have to re-assess the grounding for your faith. I have no problem with that, but just admit it. If the bible is errant then your faith will be severely shaken. This is the first step to a deeper faith in God. When you strip away the idol that you have turned an inerrant Bible into you will be more able to worship the God revealed in Jesus Christ. A God that can never to contained in the pages of a book (nevermind the pages in a book that was compiled from authors over many centuries who never intended their writings to be used in such a way). A God that is both hidden while being revealed through scripture.

[jcj3803]

I definitely believe that the ORIGINAL writings were totally inerrant.

Certain things were written to certain people. Yet, when it comes to basic Christian beliefs, those are the same. Is it really going to matter WHEN things happened as long as we KNOW they happened?

Noah took 1 pair of all unclean animals and 7 pairs of all clean animals. Noah took two of every kind of animal. Would not 7 pairs include two of every kind?



1) When did Noah zip down to Australia to get the kangaroos?

2) Consider that there are so many species of animals on Earth that you couldn't fit them or their foodsupply all in an ark, nor collect them in a lifetime, much less multiple pairs.

Clearly, while the flood might have happened and Noah might have taken certain pairs of animals with him, you cannot read the story literally word for word. The message is God's anger, destruction of the wicked and the saving of the righteous.

[Edial]

First of all, to claim that what we read, TRASNLATIONS are inerrant, that can be a problem. People make mistakes, yet, we've kept the stories and God's word as best as we can. I definitely believe that the ORIGINAL writings were totally inerrant.

ELCA uses the historical-critical method of interpretation of the Bible. It really does make sense to me and explains what you call contradictions. Certain things were written to certain people. Yet, when it comes to basic Christian beliefs, those are the same. Is it really going to matter WHEN things happened as long as we KNOW they happened? What matters about Jesus' baptism is that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

Jesus is the WORD.
The Bible is God's word that is able to give us information and feed our faith.

Noah took 1 pair of all unclean animals and 7 pairs of all clean animals. Noah took two of every kind of animal. Would not 7 pairs include two of every kind?

Go get three of your friends. Make sure each has a pen and some paper. Sit and watch some people at a store or in a park for just a few minutes. Make sure you are watching the same thing/person/people/etc.

All of you then go and write what happened. Compare the writings. Is any single one exactly the same?

Yet, you all watched the exact same thing, didn't you?

Think of things that way. . .
Good common sense post, Bridget. :)

[Edial]

1) When did Noah zip down to Australia to get the kangaroos?
Just look at the map of the world.
It does look like continents were separated somehow, doesn't it?

The Bible presnts a strong hint that there was one land prior to the flood.
It also presents that the animals came to Noah over a long period of time.


2) Consider that there are so many species of animals on Earth that you couldn't fit them or their foodsupply all in an ark, nor collect them in a lifetime, much less multiple pairs..
Sure you can fit them.
I found this link sometime ago and saved it.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/size-of-noahs-ark-faq.htm

Clearly, while the flood might have happened and Noah might have taken certain pairs of animals with him, you cannot read the story literally word for word. The message is God's anger, destruction of the wicked and the saving of the righteous.
Well, Peter read it literally when making a comparison to salvation.
1PE 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgeof a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

you are right in saying that the 7 pair would include two of each kind...but that is not what the bible SAYS...in any language!!

Noah is given two sets of instructions...(1) take 1 pair male and female..(2) take 1 pair unclean and 7 pair clean. So, which set of instructions is right?

Also, you have not addressed the issue of how Noah knows anything about the Jewish kosher laws when at this time in the Bible THERE IS NO TORAH!! These are questions that must be addressed if you are going to hold to biblical innerancy!!

I'm not saying that the ORIGINAL texts contained errors...we have no way of knowing that because we don't have any original texts...heck, even the Massoretic Hebrew texts are not "originals"..they even reflect interpretation (seeing as original hebrew had no vowel markings). Anyway...the issue is not with the original texts that each individual author wrote, the issue with inerrancy is with the Bible as we have it (regardless of translations)

Also, if we are going to look at the original authors, then we are using their writings contrary to how they intended them. Heck, even Luke says that he's writing so you can have an "orderly account" (he's not writing so it will be compiled into a larger book with other writings from people he doesn't even know).

Anyway...this conversation about inerrancy is not gonna go anywhere unless you guys address the questions. The only way you are addressing the questions is by imputing your own thoughts into the texts. Come up with a good explanation for why Noah knows anything about the kosher laws when there is no law and I might listen and dialogue. If not, you are just evading the question because it makes you uncomfortable. It makes you uncomfortable b/c it causes you to have to re-assess the grounding for your faith. I have no problem with that, but just admit it. If the bible is errant then your faith will be severely shaken. This is the first step to a deeper faith in God. When you strip away the idol that you have turned an inerrant Bible into you will be more able to worship the God revealed in Jesus Christ. A God that can never to contained in the pages of a book (nevermind the pages in a book that was compiled from authors over many centuries who never intended their writings to be used in such a way). A God that is both hidden while being revealed through scripture.
OK.

The first question concerning 1 pair of every creature and then 1 pair for every clean and 7 pairs for every unclean creatures.

Bridget already presented that 7 pairs contains "a pair" in it.
Now, concerning the seeming contradiction.

The text ...

GE 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress n wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. n 16 Make a roof for it and finish n the ark to within 18 inches n of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
GE 6:22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

GE 7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven n of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
GE 7:5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.

Gen.6:19 presents God telling Noah to take a pair of each. And it was stated that these creatures will come to Noah.

That command was made by God prior to Noah's making the arc.

Gen.6:22 Noah completed that part.

Please note that much time has passed between Noah getting his command to build the arc, building it, and now getting the second command from God in Gen.7:1.

In the second command, as they were about to enter the arc and the creatures gathered by it, God told Noah to take 1 pair of clean and 7 pairs on unclean animals.
He increased the amount.
And as Bridget mentioned, 7 pairs inludes 1 pair in it's definition.
No contradiction, just an addition to the original assignment.

The second question concerning inerrancy of today's Bible.

We know for certain that today's Greek text from which today's Bible is translated from contains errors.
There is about one half of a percent of errors in it.
These are always in the areas of numbers (a zero is missing) or a misspell of a name.

And through many manuscripts of the NT (about 20,000 perhabs) we can see for certain what the originals were.

Scriptures are inerrant only in their original forms.
In translated form they are true, yet not inerrant, since some places we know for certain that contain errors.
Tiny errors, yet nonetheless errors (a misspell of a name).

And if the Scriptures are not inerrant as translated, people that hold to inerrancy hardly worship them.

There are however, some from the "inerrancy" group that think that translated Bible is inerrant.
King James Only group comes to mind.

Greatest majority of the inerrancy group consider the Scriptures inerrant in their original autographs only and flatly reject the KJV-Only group's claim.

Third question concerning Noah knowing what "clean" and "unclean" were while the laws of Moses came much later.

Animals were sacrificed way before Noah.
Abel sacrificed animals.
So they knew about this already.

What was in Moses' case, is that the eternal Law was presented in print.

Thanks,
Ed

[soccerguy2594]

how do you quote someone in your post!?!??!?

[Edial]

how do you quote someone in your post!?!??!?
Click on "Post Quote" button.
Now, you see on the screen that the text is enclosed by [quote ... and so forth and by [/quote ... on the other end.
Whenever you take a text, any text and enclose it with [quote} and [/quote}, the text will be enquoted.

Now, I used } instead of ], so I would not enquote this message.
Substitute } with ].

If this is not clear, PM me and I'll show you over the phone.

Thanks,
Ed

[jcj3803]

Sure you can fit them.
I found this link sometime ago and saved it.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/size-of-noahs-ark-faq.htm


We'll have to agree to disagree on that one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#fitting

All the continents were most probably together at one time (Pangaia (sp?)) but the geological record indicates that was a lot longer ago than 8-10K years.

[Edial]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#fitting

All the continents were most probably together at one time (Pangaia (sp?)) but the geological record indicates that was a lot longer ago than 8-10K years.
No problem.
We can disagree.

[PinkTulip]

I just have a question, for those of you that do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you believe it is inspired by God? If yes, what does inspired mean to you?

[KagomeShuko]

I just have a question, for those of you that do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you believe it is inspired by God? If yes, what does inspired mean to you?
But the thing that we're saying is that the Bible is NOT errant. We're saying it IS inerrant. We're just saying that there may be mistakes in the translations and there are different ways of interpreting the Bible. The ELCA uses historical-critical method - why was it written? to whom was it written? what was happening there? what did they need to hear?

See - so different angles on the same stories.

[DanielRB]

Peace, Kagome :wave:

But the thing that we're saying is that the Bible is NOT errant. We're saying it IS inerrant. We're just saying that there may be mistakes in the translations and there are different ways of interpreting the Bible. The ELCA uses historical-critical method - why was it written? to whom was it written? what was happening there? what did they need to hear?

See - so different angles on the same stories.

I'm a little confused by this statement. Even most fundamentalists will admit that there can be mis-translations and mis-interpretations. But my understanding of the ELCA's position is that it is open to the possibility (not necessarily the certainty) of errors in the original manuscripts--that is, errors from the authors themselves--and not just in our translation efforts and interpretive methods.

How does your position differ from that of the fundamentalist, if you believe that the original manuscripts are "inerrant"?

(I apologize if my questioning is inappropriate for a non-Lutheran on this forum...I'll cease and distist if asked.)

In Christ,

Daniel

[Edial]

... Even most fundamentalists will admit that there can be mis-translations and mis-interpretations. But my understanding of the ELCA's position is that it is open to the possibility (not necessarily the certainty) of errors in the original manuscripts--that is, errors from the authors themselves--and not just in our translation efforts and interpretive methods.

How does your position differ from that of the fundamentalist, if you believe that the original manuscripts are "inerrant"?

(I apologize if my questioning is inappropriate for a non-Lutheran on this forum...I'll cease and distist if asked.)

In Christ,

Daniel
Hi Daniel.

Concerning interpretation of accounts -
As a synod ELCA is indeed open to certain Biblical accounts of not being literal events.
They are not saying that, yet they are not correcting members who are openly saying that they do not believe Noah's account of the literal flood, as an example.
ELCA also does not deny that these accounts are literal.
Hence, they are not addressing this topic.

Concerning inerrancy -
Same approach as above.
They also add that the Scriptures contains the truth of faith.
By it, they present that the Scriptures might contain historical or scientific errors, or be perfectly inerrant.

In other words, they are passing the ball to the individual congregations and members to decide and to follow.

In my personal opinion, inspiration of God cannot contain any errors in what it states.
(Inerrancy of course includes various figures of speech).

It is left to the believer's conscience.

And your posting style is just fine. :)

If you wish to debate, you are welcome to TCL's main forum. :)
All types of debates are welcomed there, as long as our guests use Scriptures.
(Just read the Sticky at that forum). :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[rockytrails]

i am not sure of any one here has ever heard of st olaf colege

but my great uncle was president of st olaf college
he certainly believe in the inerracny and infallability of scripture.

there still are very many pastors in the elca who are staunch defender's of the inerrancy and infallability of holy scripture as Dr luther and Dr. walther were.

But whats even more wonderful than the above is that their are millions of
lay members the world over that have not forsaken the inerancy and infallability of scripture and they are members or in fellowship with the elca..
so just because many may not believe their still are many of the elca that do believe.

my grand father was elc and my dad elc which became elca were believers in all of scripture
my dad a member of the elca whom bishop
anderson came to his funeral was a staunch believer in the inerrancy and infalllability of all of scripture.

so i know their are many who believe the bible is inerrant in all it say's are elca also.

my dad was also pastor of first Lutheran Albertlea Minn at that time it was
one of the lagest Congregation's the lutheran church had more than 10,000 baptized member's
they practiced Close or closed communion..

[Edial]

i am not sure of any one here has ever heard of st olaf colege

but my great uncle was president of st olaf college
he certainly believe in the inerracny and infallability of scripture.

there still are very many pastors in the elca who are staunch defender's of the inerrancy and infallability of holy scripture as Dr luther and Dr. walther were.

But whats even more wonderful than the above is that their are millions of
lay members the world over that have not forsaken the inerancy and infallability of scripture and they are members or in fellowship with the elca..
so just because many may not believe their still are many of the elca that do believe.

my grand father was elc and my dad elc which became elca were believers in all of scripture
my dad a member of the elca whom bishop
anderson came to his funeral was a staunch believer in the inerrancy and infalllability of all of scripture.

so i know their are many who believe the bible is inerrant in all it say's are elca also.
I appreciate your post.

Thanks,
Ed. :)

[ProdicalChristian]

Regarding ELCA. I don't believe that majority of the members actually agree with all of ELCA's positions, especially when it comes to the Scriptures.

I do have one concerned question about "literally" true issue, that is my main issue.

Job, Jonah and others stories to me are literally true according to God's power however seem so "unreal" from sinner point of view. Unbelief is the oldest of the many spiritual diseases by which fallen human nature is afflicted. They refuse to accept anything which they cannot understand. Inspiration, Miracles, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Holy Spirit, the Resurrection, the Future State, all these mighty verities are viewed with cold indifference as disputable points, if not absolutely rejected. Can we entirely explain them? Who has not known that some of the minor facts and miracles of the Bible are the ostensible reasons which many assign why they cannot receive the Book as true, and make it their rule of faith and practice. People talk of the ark, and the passage of the Red Sea, and Balaam's ass, and Jonah in the whale's belly, and ask you sarcastically if you really believe such things to be credible and historically true.

In Matthew 12:40 Jesus said, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

I have been studying Job. Job reads like history. It talks about a man named Job. He lived in the land of Uz. It relates details about his family, his life, and his suffering. It communicates to us his friends' interest in his suffering, and the spiritual struggling with which Job dealt. What's interesting is that other biblical writers refer to Job as a real person. Ezekiel refers to Job along with Noah and Daniel (Ezekiel 14:14,20). And James draws upon the example of Job to comfort the suffering, proving the point that God is merciful. He commends the endurance of Job (James 5:11).

[Willy]

To say that Jonah or Ruth or Job or Esther are historically true is to miss out on the character of the literature that these books are. They (not including Job) are Hebrew short stories. If you read them, you will see the formulaic nature of them--a formula that is typical for short stories. The lack of historicity of these works does not make them not true, though. They indeed are inspired. That is, the Spirit continues to breathe life into the church through them.

[Edial]

To say that Jonah or Ruth or Job or Esther are historically true is to miss out on the character of the literature that these books are. They (not including Job) are Hebrew short stories. If you read them, you will see the formulaic nature of them--a formula that is typical for short stories. The lack of historicity of these works does not make them not true, though. They indeed are inspired. That is, the Spirit continues to breathe life into the church through them.
Then maybe Jesus Christ and the other holy dudes should have waited for our comments some 2000 years later concerning the historicity of what they talked about some 2000 years ago.

[Willy]

Then maybe Jesus Christ and the other holy dudes should have waited for our comments some 2000 years later concerning the historicity of what they talked about some 2000 years ago.
I guess that's true!

[Edial]

:)

[gtmyers]

It sounds like we pretty much believe the same thing. From my point of view, the Bible isn't necessarily inerrant in science or history, but it is inerrant on faith and morals.

Thanks for the replies!
I agree totally!

[AngelusSax]

I'm reminded of a phrase used by some to describe belief in the inerrancy of the Bible:
"I believe the Bible contains stories of things happening and being said that happened and were said as written, some events happening possibly in a way other than exactly as written, and some that may not have happened anywhere near close to what was written. And some may not have happened at all. But it's all still True."

[Edial]

I'm reminded of a phrase used by some to describe belief in the inerrancy of the Bible:
"I believe the Bible contains stories of things happening and being said that happened and were said as written, some events happening possibly in a way other than exactly as written, and some that may not have happened anywhere near close to what was written. And some may not have happened at all. But it's all still True."
But if a story never happened how can it be true?

[AngelusSax]

But if a story never happened how can it be true?

Truth is not about whether events of a story took place. Truth is about the message of the story.

For example: IF the story of Jonah is a fable (I say IF), then is it still true? Yes, because the message is that God will get you where he needs you to be, even if you fight him tooth and nail along the way. And He'll even take drastic measures to get it done.

Truth is about the message, the point, the theological of it. The events actually happening as it says are a secondary concern.

[RegularGuy]

But if a story never happened how can it be true?
Facticity is a shallow measure of truth.

[Willy]

Facticity is a shallow measure of truth.
Very good. It is more than obvious that the story of Jonah is not a historical happening. How many big fish do you know that spit people up on the beach? And what's more, the literary character of the story makes it clear that this, along with the Book of Ruth, is a Hebrew short story. But truth has nothing to do with whether big fish actually swallow people. This story is profoundly true. Many people would rather avoid the truth of this story by focusing on it as a historical occurrence.

[Edial]

Facticity is a shallow measure of truth.
Why? Don't facts support the truth?

[Edial]

Truth is not about whether events of a story took place. Truth is about the message of the story.

For example: IF the story of Jonah is a fable (I say IF), then is it still true? Yes, because the message is that God will get you where he needs you to be, even if you fight him tooth and nail along the way. And He'll even take drastic measures to get it done.

Truth is about the message, the point, the theological of it. The events actually happening as it says are a secondary concern.
But if the teller of the story is telling a story that is not true, why would anyone want to believe him?

Let's take Jonah.
Jesus compared his true death and being in Hades for 3 days and nights to the story of Jonah being in the belly of the fish.
If the story of the fish is not true, why should Christ's claim be true?

MT 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Isn't it just easier to believe that the Jonah story happened?

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Very good. It is more than obvious that the story of Jonah is not a historical happening. How many big fish do you know that spit people up on the beach? And what's more, the literary character of the story makes it clear that this, along with the Book of Ruth, is a Hebrew short story. But truth has nothing to do with whether big fish actually swallow people. This story is profoundly true. Many people would rather avoid the truth of this story by focusing on it as a historical occurrence.
This happened thoisands of years ago.
Species die out all the time.
How would you know there was no such fish of such proportions.
I would be interested to know why you say it is more than obvious the story of Jonah is not a historical happening.

Thanks,
Ed

[RegularGuy]

Why? Don't facts support the truth?
Fact is one kind of truth. The shallowest kind.

There are deep, spiritual truths that cannot be conveyed by mere fact.

It's something like a a painting by Van Gogh. If we discuss the facts of the painting...its dimensions, its palette, the chemical composition of the materials and the technique of their application, etc....we will never appreciate the sheer beauty of the thing, or the raw emotion that it evokes in us.

Shakespeare was great not because his stories were factual, but because they conveyed deep truths about the human condition.

Consider that Darwinian evolution is supported by fact. Now, Darwin's theory of evolution is an amazing intellectual acheivment, but the first two chapters of Genesis tell truths about human existence and our relationship to the Creator that Darwin's theory never can.

Arguing the facticity of Genesis misses the point and ignores the spiritual truth of those accounts. Same with Jonah, as Willy pointed out.

Spiritual truth is conveyed by art, poetry, parable, myth and story. Not by factual account.

[Edial]

Fact is one kind of truth. The shallowest kind.

There are deep, spiritual truths that cannot be conveyed by mere fact.

It's something like a a painting by Van Gogh. If we discuss the facts of the painting...its dimensions, its palette, the chemical composition of the materials and the technique of their application, etc....we will never appreciate the sheer beauty of the thing, or the raw emotion that it evokes in us.

Shakespeare was great not because his stories were factual, but because they conveyed deep truths about the human condition.

Consider that Darwinian evolution is supported by fact. Now, Darwin's theory of evolution is an amazing intellectual acheivment, but the first two chapters of Genesis tell truths about human existence and our relationship to the Creator that Darwin's theory never can.

Arguing the facticity of Genesis misses the point and ignores the spiritual truth of those accounts. Same with Jonah, as Willy pointed out.

Spiritual truth is conveyed by art, poetry, parable, myth and story. Not by factual account.
Well, but doesn't the factual truth a part of a deeper truth, as per your analogy?
If we look at Van Gogh's painting, isn't the deeper truth of it's message displayed on a canvas of specific dimentions?

And concerning evolution, Genesis has no problem with evolution as long as it is not from specy to specy.
The actual proof of evolution is not there as far as species to species of concerned.
Genesis openly presents that there could easily be many "Trees" from which each specy evolves into a variety of it's own specy, like bears, as an example - grizzly, polar, black.

Thanks,
Ed

[RevCowboy]

But if the teller of the story is telling a story that is not true, why would anyone want to believe him?

Thanks,
Ed

Genesis, Jonah, evolution aside... This statement caught my attention.

Do the parables and stories that Jesus told not contain truth? Are they not to be trusted because they are parables instead of factual recountings of events?

Perhaps another way of asking this question is: Is God's only hermeneutic literalism? Is God capable of using something other than literal cold hard facts to convey truth to us?

To me the fact that Jesus often told parables and stories to make points suggests that God likes to use stories and parables to convey Truth to us.

[Edial]

Genesis, Jonah, evolution aside... This statement caught my attention.

Do the parables and stories that Jesus told not contain truth? Are they not to be trusted because they are parables instead of factual recountings of events?

Perhaps another way of asking this question is: Is God's only hermeneutic literalism? Is God capable of using something other than literal cold hard facts to convey truth to us?

To me the fact that Jesus often told parables and stories to make points suggests that God likes to use stories and parables to convey Truth to us.
You will note that whenever Christ used parables he was stating that it is a parable. You might want to combine all the accounts of one event and you'll see that in at least one if them it states that ir is a parable.
Or, there are a bunch of parables in a row and it is preceeded by a word "parables".

God is certainly capable of using a truth that is within a parable. It is analogous in nature.

However, there is a different purpose of stating actual events. For example, if we do not take Jonah literally, why take Christ's being in hades literally.

What I am saying is that there are parables and true events and each must be taken in it's own context, because, well, there is a purpose in all that is written.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Willy]

No. To say so is to deny the kind of literature it is.

[RegularGuy]

Well, but doesn't the factual truth a part of a deeper truth, as per your analogy?
If we look at Van Gogh's painting, isn't the deeper truth of it's message displayed on a canvas of specific dimentions?


Yes, and a Bible is printed with inks of a specific chemical composition, on paper of a certain weight, and bound in a particular style. All of which are quite irrelavent to the message of the Scriptures.

Don't get hung up on the analogy. Take the point: not all truth is conveyed by fact.

[RegularGuy]

You will note that whenever Christ used parables he was stating that it is a parable. You might want to combine all the accounts of one event and you'll see that in at least one if them it states that ir is a parable.
Or, there are a bunch of parables in a row and it is preceeded by a word "parables".


You know, I've heard this stated often before, but I don't find that it holds up well.

For instance, Mtt 18.10-14 (the Lost Sheep) and Mtt. 21.28-32 (the Two Sons) are not specifically designated as parables, unless you take the phrase "What do you think" to be equivalent to "This is a parable."

Luke 10.25-37 (the Good Samaritan), Luke 14.15-24 (the Great Dinner Party), and Luke 16.19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) bear every mark of being parables, but are not designated as such. The argument that they are, therefore, factual accounts is circular, proceeding from the assumption that parables are always specifically described as parables.

None of the parables of the Old Testament are described as such, for example Judges 9:7-15 (the Parable of the Trees) or Nathan's parable in 2 Sam. 12.1-7.

To argue that any of these accounts not designated as "parables" is factual would be to miss their point.

[Edial]

Yes, and a Bible is printed with inks of a specific chemical composition, on paper of a certain weight, and bound in a particular style. All of which are quite irrelavent to the message of the Scriptures.

Don't get hung up on the analogy. Take the point: not all truth is conveyed by fact.
Oh, I completely agree. Not all truth is conveyed by facts.
However, if something is presented as a fact, why dismiss it as if it is not?
Would it damage the deeper truth that is found in the message?

[RegularGuy]

Oh, I completely agree. Not all truth is conveyed by facts.
However, if something is presented as a fact, why dismiss it as if it is not?
Would it damage the deeper truth that is found in the message?
In the case of Jonah, the book does not present itself as being fact any more than a Stephen King novel presents itself as being fact. There are many inidications within the text itself that Jonah is not an historical writing at all.

Now, if someone wants to believe that Jonah is a factual account, that doesn't really concern me, provided they don't miss the core meaning of the story: that God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love...love even for those whom we might think are God's enemies...love even for those whom we might prefer to condemn.

When discussions about the book of Jonah devolve into apologetics concerning whether there is a sea creature with a gullet large enough to swallow a grown man, whether said man could survive three days in the belly of said sea creature, whether the city of Ninevah was truly 3 days' walk across, and whether cattle wear sackcloth, then clearly the point of the story is missed, the greater truth is damaged, and...

...the humor is lost!

[Edial]

In the case of Jonah, the book does not present itself as being fact any more than a Stephen King novel presents itself as being fact. There are many inidications within the text itself that Jonah is not an historical writing at all.

Now, if someone wants to believe that Jonah is a factual account, that doesn't really concern me, provided they don't miss the core meaning of the story: that God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love...love even for those whom we might think are God's enemies...love even for those whom we might prefer to condemn.

When discussions about the book of Jonah devolve into apologetics concerning whether there is a sea creature with a gullet large enough to swallow a grown man, whether said man could survive three days in the belly of said sea creature, whether the city of Ninevah was truly 3 days' walk across, and whether cattle wear sackcloth, then clearly the point of the story is missed, the greater truth is damaged, and...

...the humor is lost!
Well, one might also find humor in what you say.

However, that "Someone" who "wants to believe that Jonah is a factual account" is actually Jesus.

He referred to that example when He talked about his death and being in Hades for 3 days and nights.

Since you and I were not there and know very little concerning even the basics of spiritual life and the Supernatural itself, I would personally stick with what Jesis believed, since I certainly have no desire to ask Him to prove His beliefs.

MT 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Ed

[Edial]

You know, I've heard this stated often before, but I don't find that it holds up well.

For instance, Mtt 18.10-14 (the Lost Sheep) and Mtt. 21.28-32 (the Two Sons) are not specifically designated as parables, unless you take the phrase "What do you think" to be equivalent to "This is a parable."

Luke 10.25-37 (the Good Samaritan), Luke 14.15-24 (the Great Dinner Party), and Luke 16.19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) bear every mark of being parables, but are not designated as such. The argument that they are, therefore, factual accounts is circular, proceeding from the assumption that parables are always specifically described as parables.

None of the parables of the Old Testament are described as such, for example Judges 9:7-15 (the Parable of the Trees) or Nathan's parable in 2 Sam. 12.1-7.

To argue that any of these accounts not designated as "parables" is factual would be to miss their point.
The word "parable(s)" appear at least 40 times in the NT.
The NT examples you have presented do not have an internal evidence that they are not true references.
(You certainly cannot prove that).

The "If" statement in Matthew 18 also shows that it is not an actual event even if word "parable" is missing.

And as you supported by the follow-up post, the point in question actually is Jonah's story, ... and Adam and Eve, and Noah, and the Flood ... that some try dismissing as factual fables.

All these however, are supported by other texts in the Bible showing them to be actual events that happened in history.

The argument that since Christ spoke in parable he also spoke in parables in the events that I have mentioned, is a poor logic, since these events are clearly supported by other texts to be actual events in history.

The strange zeal that some have in insisting that something if not factual despite of Bible's plain statements of these being factual, alarms me, since there is no logic, no reaons, no support for this, ... but a plain unreasonable zeal.

Zeal without understanding is not good.

Thanks,
Ed

[RegularGuy]

Well, one might also find humor in what you say.

However, that "Someone" who "wants to believe that Jonah is a factual account" is actually Jesus.

He referred to that example when He talked about his death and being in Hades for 3 days and nights.

Since you and I were not there and know very little concerning even the basics of spiritual life and the Supernatural itself, I would personally stick with what Jesis believed, since I certainly have no desire to ask Him to prove His beliefs.

MT 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Ed

Ed:

I have a friend who has the same affliction that King Midas suffered. Like Gordon Gekko, he believes that "greed is good." He would like to be as rich as Croesus.

In the three sentences above, I referred to two fictional characters and one historical person. Is there anything in my words to indicate which is which?

There is nothing in Matthew 12:40 statement to indicate that Jesus believed Jonah was an actual historical figure.

[RegularGuy]

The word "parable(s)" appear at least 40 times in the NT.
The NT examples you have presented do not have an internal evidence that they are not true references.
(You certainly cannot prove that).


And yet the stories I cited from Luke are used as parables. There is nothing to indicate that they are factual accounts (and you cannot prove that.) The absence of proof is not proof.



And as you supported by the follow-up post, the point in question actually is Jonah's story, ... and Adam and Eve, and Noah, and the Flood ... that some try dismissing as factual fables.


Dismiss? Fable? Not at all. The point is not to dismiss these stories, but to thoroughly understand them. That includes understanding their literary genre.

Remember that not all truth is fact. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah reveal truths about God and humanity that are not dependent on their being factual. Insisting upon their facticity may even obscure their truth.


All these however, are supported by other texts in the Bible showing them to be actual events that happened in history.

The argument that since Christ spoke in parable he also spoke in parables in the events that I have mentioned, is a poor logic, since these events are clearly supported by other texts to be actual events in history.


Circular argument is also poor logic.

My points about parables are these:

1. Facticity is not the only measure of truth. It is, rather, a shallow measure.

2. Parables reveal truth about God and humanity without being factually true.

3. The story of Jonah, which bears the literary marks of a work of fiction, nonetheless reveals parabolic truths.

(Honestly, if you read Jonah's story in any other collection of literature than the Bible, would you assume that it was a factual, historical account?)


The strange zeal that some have in insisting that something if not factual despite of Bible's plain statements of these being factual, alarms me, since there is no logic, no reaons, no support for this, ... but a plain unreasonable zeal.


Conversely, the strange zeal that some have for insisting that a story is factual simply because it is in the Bible in spite of every evidence, external and internal, to the contrary, seems to me both unreasonable and pointless. Literalism betrays the message of the text itself.

Using our example of Jonah, the book itself nowhere proclaims its historicity, nor do references elsewhere in the Bible.


Zeal without understanding is not good.


On this we agree.

Peace.

[Edial]

Edial,

The bible has all sorts of errors.

There are literally dozens of mistakes like this, within the word of God.
We do know that today's texts have some misspells of names and numbers, about 1/2 % of the text.
And we know these places. They are clearly pointed out in various commentaries and other references.
This is perhabs one of them. (I do not have the list of these instances).

The argument of the inspiration of God is in context of the original autographs. The original letters that the writers penned.

2Timothy3:16 is referring to the originals.

2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Today's translations reflect the originals excellently.

They differ from them in some numbers and mispells of names. Scribal errors.

Yet there are no contradictions within areas other than some numbers and misspells of names.

For example:
Dead Sea Scrolls that were found recently (in the '70s?) contained the complete Isaiah. This is one of the most anscient manuscripts on Isaiah that was found.

When they compared it to today's Hebrew texts, there was just one or two misspells of a name (or a place, I forgot now).
This manuscript if currently on display on a wall in Vatican page by page for all to see.

No one believes that today's Bible is completely errorless. No one. No LCMS, no Fundamentalists, no Baptists, no one that I know.

Yet today's Bible is extremely reliable, since it reflects the inspired Scriptures that were penned by the original authors.

Thanks,
Ed

[servingtheking]

We do know that today's texts have some misspells of names and numbers, about 1/2 % of the text.
And we know these places. They are clearly pointed out in various commentaries and other references.
This is perhabs one of them. (I do not have the list of these instances).

The argument of the inspiration of God is in context of the original autographs. The original letters that the writers penned.

2Timothy3:16 is referring to the originals.

2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Today's translations reflect the originals excellently.

They differ from them in some numbers and mispells of names. Scribal errors.

Yet there are no contradictions within areas other than some numbers and misspells of names.

For example:
Dead Sea Scrolls that were found recently (in the '70s?) contained the complete Isaiah. This is one of the most anscient manuscripts on Isaiah that was found.

When they compared it to today's Hebrew texts, there was just one or two misspells of a name (or a place, I forgot now).
This manuscript if currently on display on a wall in Vatican page by page for all to see.

No one believes that today's Bible is completely errorless. No one. No LCMS, no Fundamentalists, no Baptists, no one that I know.

Yet today's Bible is extremely reliable, since it reflects the inspired Scriptures that were penned by the original authors.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial, you forget that this is Paul writting, even by the most liberal dating of the pastorals that I'm aware of, that's late first, early second century. So what is Paul probably talking about here? The Old Testament.

The old testament (and then re-applied to the new testament) is surely God breathed, but it's silly to think that Paul intends without errors. Why do I think that? The oldest manuscripts avalible, like those from Qumran are from roughly the same time. And yet they found most of our bible there, and yet there are still those errors in it! By the time of Paul and Timothy's time the bible has already gone through hundreds of years of scribal copying. With this copying mistakes are inevitable. Paul's OT manuscript had mistakes in it, we have manuscripts from nearly the same time that already contain the errors. If the bible is inerant in its autographed copies, that's not saying much because there is no way to substantiate it, and no real reason too.

In my opinion, it's not big deal to hold a book as both written by God and written by people, something as both human and divine. It's almost like that other word of God being both human and divine.

[servingtheking]

Sorry, double post.

[servingtheking]

Yes, you're right about the numbers illustration. We have to look at text families and look at the majority of texts we have. I'm not only talking about scribal errors (dittography and the like). I'm talking about all errors. Our MSS from Qumran don't solve the fact that Chronicles gives one history and Kings gives another of the same event. Like King Josiah's death happening in both Israel, and Egypt.

The MSS of Paul's day already contained these sorts of errors, and Paul was refering to them as "God breathed"
These aren't spelling mistakes, or line skips, those errors don't just happen, some are repeated by different authors. They are several verses that are mistakes. Do you attribute that to wicked monks and rabbis? You can't just trumpet out proof texts from the Bible and say "look, here it says its perfect." I could write a book and say every word in is is true, but if I contradict myself in places, then everything isn't perfect is it.

[Edial]

Edial, you forget that this is Paul writting, even by the most liberal dating of the pastorals that I'm aware of, that's late first, early second century. So what is Paul probably talking about here? The Old Testament.

The old testament (and then re-applied to the new testament) is surely God breathed, but it's silly to think that Paul intends without errors. Why do I think that? The oldest manuscripts avalible, like those from Qumran are from roughly the same time. And yet they found most of our bible there, and yet there are still those errors in it! By the time of Paul and Timothy's time the bible has already gone through hundreds of years of scribal copying. With this copying mistakes are inevitable. Paul's OT manuscript had mistakes in it, we have manuscripts from nearly the same time that already contain the errors. If the bible is inerant in its autographed copies, that's not saying much because there is no way to substantiate it, and no real reason too.

In my opinion, it's not big deal to hold a book as both written by God and written by people, something as both human and divine. It's almost like that other word of God being both human and divine.
I'm a little lost here; what Paul's OT manuscript?

Yes, Paul referred to OT as Scriptures.
However, Paul's writings are also referred as Scriptures by Peter.

2PE 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Maybe I am missing your point here someplace.

And I disagree with you concerning not knowing whether the original autographs had errors or not.

Once one compiles all the available manuscripts, one plainly sees the scribal errors.

Let's say we take 10 copies of a certain original text.
We do not possess that original, yet have these 10 copies.
Let's say 9 of them have a number 50 in it. 1 of them has a number 5 in it.
It is clear that the intended number is 50.
The one with 5 is in error.

It is not hard to distingiush scribal errors.

Also, I cannot grasp (even from a hypothetical perspective) how something that is inspired by God could contain errors.
Inspiration from God indicates that it came from God.
A simple logic would suggest that since something comes from God, God is capable to relate that without errors through the fallible human being.

I mean, even a heretic could accurately write something that is given to him.
Being human does not necessarily mean we will always err in that what was given us to write.

There are also these statements concerning God's word ...

PR 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
PR 30:6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

It shows that we are capable of willingly adding to it.
That means we are also clearly capable not to.

God's word by very definition includes instructions.

One expects instructions in any of our instruments "User's Manual" to be without errors.
And the greatest majority of them are accurate.

Why then would we expect God's word contain errors?

Weren't they penned by the same fallible men as the User's Manuals that we trust?

Why expect that the original autographs had error?

We certainly cannot prove that.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[servingtheking]

Yes, you're right about the numbers illustration. We have to look at text families and look at the majority of texts we have. I'm not only talking about scribal errors (dittography and the like). I'm talking about all errors. Our MSS from Qumran don't solve the fact that Chronicles gives one history and Kings gives another of the same event. Like King Josiah's death happening in both Israel, and Egypt.

The MSS of Paul's day already contained these sorts of errors, and Paul was refering to them as "God breathed"
These aren't spelling mistakes, or line skips, those errors don't just happen, some are repeated by different authors. They are several verses that are mistakes. Do you attribute that to wicked monks and rabbis? You can't just trumpet out proof texts from the Bible and say "look, here it says its perfect." I could write a book and say every word in is is true, but if I contradict myself in places, then everything isn't perfect is it.

[Zecryphon]

A brilliant question!

Its amazing to see the non-Biblical answers that fundamentalists come up with to answer questions like that.

Case in point: How do fundamentalists explain Genesis 4:17 ("And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch"). Now, up to that point, Genesis has said absolutely nothing about women other than Eve. So, how does the Ryrie Study Bible (a fundamentalist study Bible, the footnotes to which are fundamentalist/dispensationalist) explain away that one? The footnote to that verse says that his wife was "[o]bviously a daughter of Adam. She may have been Cain's sister, niece, or even grand-niece. Since Adam's and Eve's genetic systems had no mutant genes in them, such a marriage would not be dangerous as it is today."

Its ironic how these people claim to be sola scriptura, and then have to make up ridiculous theories for which there is no Biblical evidence, such as "no mutant genes", to make the Bible fit their belief systems.
Read Genesis 5:4. It says that Adam had other sons and daughters. So Cain must have taken his wife from among those daughters.

[AngelusSax]

Read Genesis 5:4. It says that Adam had other sons and daughters. So Cain must have taken his wife from among those daughters.

It does say that, but does it say he had any of them prior to Cain getting married, or that he simply had them? The account seems to say (given the sentence structure and the way such sentence structure is usually filtered through the mind, aka interpreted) that the other sons and daughters came after the birth of Seth.

Gen 5:4 And after the birth of Seth, Adam went on living for eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters: (BBE)

It seems, from the way the story progresses, that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, the former slaying the latter, who then went off and got married to someone, and then Adam and Eve had Seth, and then they proceeded to have other sons and daughters.

That isn't to say that the story didn't just kinda do a "oh by the way, there were other sons and daughters before too" type of thing, nor is that statement I just made indicating that it did indeed do that.

I'm merely pointing out that there is indeed more than one way the story can be looked at. At the very least, the creation story is a story that shows that mankind has a prominent place within creation for God, and that mankind, given their free will, will choose to disobey God more often than not, but that God will, even through punishment, show mercy and forgiveness (after all, He didn't immediately kill Adam and Eve and start all over, and He was always watching over them even in their separation).

It may well be an actual factual accurate historical account. It may be what is known as historicized myth. Either way, when one reads it one's faith in and trust in God to always be our guide should always grow and be re-affirmed.

[AngelusSax]

Edit:
Double posted, so ignore this.....

[AngelusSax]

I don't disagree with that, per se, but my point is that that is an inferrence we either make or we do not make, about the other children.

My other point was that, while the genealogy thing is nice and all, it should not be the focus from a Christ-centered view of reading it. The story of God's Providence to man, even though we sin as our natural inclination, should be the focus point we get from reading the Genesis account.

Whether it is factual or historicized myth should never change the message God was communicating. It can be fun to debate over (and I personally tend to line up more with it being factual, though if someone else tells me they view it as historicized myth, and yet they still firmly believe in Christ, I don't see a point in getting all up in arms towards them over this particular story's factualness).

So while it is reasonable to assume Adam and Eve had other children prior to Seth, and while it is reasonable to assume that those long periods of time were not "waiting periods" between one kid and the next, it isn't said. We must infer. We must interpret, whether to say those are the only children or to say they aren't.

1. The obvious one that Adam had Cain and Abel prior to Seth while the geneological text does not mention it.

Okay, slight problem with that.

I know that in chapter 5, where you quoted, it doesn't. And if that is all you referred to as the genealogical text, then okay, you're right. But, chapter 4 illustrates that, indeed, Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and then Seth, but still says nothing of other children (though we can and do infer that they did).

Again, my point is simply that there is room for more than one interpretation, and it's entirely possible that none are 100% correct. But we can rest assured that the Holy Spirit will move through this text, as all of the Scriptures, to reach each person who reads it, to point them toward Christ, whether they interpret something as myth with a point, as literal history, a combination of the two, or whatever.

I know that some will say "but if one thing isn't literal, why should any of the rest of it be taken that way?"

But God works in us, through us, and toward us, and for us, in the ways we need Him to. He knows how our brains are "hard-wired", so to speak, since He hard-wired them. If someone will grasp the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ better by taking Adam and Eve as historicized myth, then I don't see God having too big a problem with that, since Christ is the utmost in importance, and everything else is secondary to Him and His work to, through, and for us.

[servingtheking]

I'm merely pointing out that there is indeed more than one way the story can be looked at. At the very least, the creation story is a story that shows that mankind has a prominent place within creation for God, and that mankind, given their free will, will choose to disobey God more often than not, but that God will, even through punishment, show mercy and forgiveness (after all, He didn't immediately kill Adam and Eve and start all over, and He was always watching over them even in their separation).

It may well be an actual factual accurate historical account. It may be what is known as historicized myth. Either way, when one reads it one's faith in and trust in God to always be our guide should always grow and be re-affirmed.

Well said, I agree. No one just "reads" the bible without making interpretation. Even the translators have to make interpretive judgements on how they render the Hebrew/Greek texts.

[Edial]

Yes, you're right about the numbers illustration. We have to look at text families and look at the majority of texts we have. I'm not only talking about scribal errors (dittography and the like). I'm talking about all errors. Our MSS from Qumran don't solve the fact that Chronicles gives one history and Kings gives another of the same event. Like King Josiah's death happening in both Israel, and Egypt.

The MSS of Paul's day already contained these sorts of errors, and Paul was refering to them as "God breathed"
These aren't spelling mistakes, or line skips, those errors don't just happen, some are repeated by different authors. They are several verses that are mistakes. Do you attribute that to wicked monks and rabbis? You can't just trumpet out proof texts from the Bible and say "look, here it says its perfect." I could write a book and say every word in is is true, but if I contradict myself in places, then everything isn't perfect is it.
Wait a minute.
Then show me these verses.

I know about numbers and name misspells.

I certainly do not trumpet that the Bible is correct without looking at the problematic verses. And I looked at a good number of those without finding them contradictory.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

It does say that, but does it say he had any of them prior to Cain getting married, or that he simply had them? The account seems to say (given the sentence structure and the way such sentence structure is usually filtered through the mind, aka interpreted) that the other sons and daughters came after the birth of Seth.

Gen 5:4 And after the birth of Seth, Adam went on living for eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters: (BBE)

It seems, from the way the story progresses, that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, the former slaying the latter, who then went off and got married to someone, and then Adam and Eve had Seth, and then they proceeded to have other sons and daughters.

That isn't to say that the story didn't just kinda do a "oh by the way, there were other sons and daughters before too" type of thing, nor is that statement I just made indicating that it did indeed do that.

I'm merely pointing out that there is indeed more than one way the story can be looked at. At the very least, the creation story is a story that shows that mankind has a prominent place within creation for God, and that mankind, given their free will, will choose to disobey God more often than not, but that God will, even through punishment, show mercy and forgiveness (after all, He didn't immediately kill Adam and Eve and start all over, and He was always watching over them even in their separation).

It may well be an actual factual accurate historical account. It may be what is known as historicized myth. Either way, when one reads it one's faith in and trust in God to always be our guide should always grow and be re-affirmed.
The evidence that it is factual and that there were other children prior to it are right in the text.

GE 5:1 This