« Second Grade Pro-life Lesson | Main | Message & Form »

July 27, 2009

Comments

I wish Greg would be more specific.

How about 1-2 examples of the "so-called errors," as he calls them?

For example, YEC's argue that the Earth is 6,000ish years old. Science tells us otherwise. Which are we to believe? If we accept the scientific evidence, isn't there some type of "error" that needs explaining?

Or what about the obvious conflicts between the synoptic accounts of the passion week with John?

I guess I'm just looking for specificity, and often, Greg is a bit generic in his responses.

I'm not sure that I would characterize your first example as an "error." There is no contridcition in the text.

Greg actually did touch briefly on your second example by saying that one writter might give a more full description than another.

brgulker says:

For example, YEC's argue that the Earth is 6,000ish years old. Science tells us otherwise. Which are we to believe? If we accept the scientific evidence, isn't there some type of "error" that needs explaining?

There's no error in the text, just our understanding of it. That's why you have YEC scientists defending one view and OEC scientists defending theirs. We need to let scripture interpret scripture and if science can help, great.

An excellent reference I have on this is "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. It goes through the Bible, book by book, almost verse by verse, expounding on apparent errors, seeming contradictions, etc. If you want specific examples, look no further.

BTW, the YEC arguement of 6,000 years is NOT spelled out in the Bible. It was inferred by Bishop Usher (how long ago?) by exprapolating on geneaoligies, etc. The Bible itself never specifies an age of the earth, or of creation as a whole.

A good book on the subject of the resurrection accounts in the four gospels is John Wenham's "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?" It's a fairly short book, but it's quite dense, so you'll have to read slowly!

brgulker, if i can spin you in the Wright direction (no pun), some of the errors you cite from the gospels are due to a lack of literature genre understanding on behalf of the reader. Once you understand genre, youl wonder why you got hung up on it in the first place. UNless im addressing the wrong accuzation here, which is possible too.

Greg summarized that most if not all ascribed biblical errors are really misreadings of the text. And made mention that some are do to known textual errors in the copies. What can be added are issues do to translation. But as Greg said, most are do to the misreading of the text.

BTW, I believe in a YEC and an old universe origin. I do not believe the YEC was 6,000 years ago, by reason that flood evidence can be shown to be over 8,000 years ago. Materally the earth is as old as the univese (Genesis 1:1.) And I do not hold to the so-called gap theory for the geological ages. I hold the 6 days were 6 days. There is one piece of scientific evidence. When our Sun became our Sun it would blow the debris away from the Sun past the earth. The mean velocity of this solar wind takes about 4 days from the Sun to go past the earth. It was on the 4 the day when the to lights are said to be made. The first day the Sun bacame the light in out of the darkness the first day. The solar wind 4 days later let the Sun and the moon to be seen with the stars.

In relation to the inerrancy of Scripture, I have a query: when does an utterance become inerrant?

Consider, for example, the day of Pentecost. When the Spirit descends upon the disciples, Peter rises with the eleven and proclaims: "But this is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). Now how do we know whether this is in fact what was spoken of by Joel, or whether this is just a correct "memorex" recording of what Peter said, but in fact it was not what was spoken of by Joel?

Now if Peter and the other apostles are speaking through authority having already been placed upon them by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), is it their utterances that is the true standard of inerrancy?

In relation to the inerrancy of Scripture, I have a query: when does an utterance become inerrant?
Inerrancy is when what is said or written is God's word or God's word on what is said or written.

Consider, for example, the day of Pentecost. When the Spirit descends upon the disciples, Peter rises with the eleven and proclaims: "But this is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). Now how do we know whether this is in fact what was spoken of by Joel, or whether this is just a correct "memorex" recording of what Peter said, but in fact it was not what was spoken of by Joel?

Peter said that what was happening was a fulfillment, the meaning, to say "is," was to say in a metaphore of what the prophet Joel had written (Joel 2:28-32.) As there is yet to be more fulfillment (Acts 1:7; Matthew 24:27-31; Revelation 6:12-17.)

("is" see useage: Luke 2:11; Matthew 26:26; 1 John 1:5. Etc.)

Now if Peter and the other apostles are speaking through authority having already been placed upon them by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), is it their utterances that is the true standard of inerrancy?
Not exactly. Jesus instructions to baptize and teach all things He instructed to be taught does not make anything said in that regard inerrant. Rather when the Apostles in so doing spoke by the Holy Spirit as the Spirit gave them what to speak.(see 2 Peter 1:21.)

I am a Christian with a serious question. I'm not trying to "disprove" the original post or make a case against the Bible...

Why would God bother to give us an inerrant original of the Scriptures, but not bother to preserve its accuracy throughout the ages as it's transcribed?

The comments to this entry are closed.