You're making it very hard for me to take you seriously by stating your belief that the bible is infallible when there is clear evidence that it is contradictory and full of shit.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbibl...ra/ by_name.html

And just in case you don't know: Mary was not a virgin. The original Hebrew writing called for a "young woman" to give birth to the messiah (or something like the messiah). It was mistranslated (possibly intentionally) and references to a virgin birth were later edited into the New Testament.
Jeremy | Homepage | 10.04.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Gee Jeremy, thanks for clearing that up. All these years.. who'd of thunk it?
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.04.05 - 9:15 pm | #

Faith and reason are compatible, yes.

Advocacy of a literal Bible isn't compatible with reason, and is rather the opposite of faith.

Myers gets a bit worked up -- but then, we all do when wackoes claim to have science that refutes all we know, and then they hide it for 16 years.

The Bible is infallible? Well, so far as correctly translated from the autographs, perhaps (editing out Lilith goes a bit far, don't you think?). Infallible in issues of religion, perhaps.

Maybe that's why the Bible is silent against evolution. I'll grant the Bible as infallible, but not Phillip Johnson, and certainly not William Dembski. Einstein admitted his fallibility, many times. So does Myers, for that matter.

Another way in which scientists are superior to ID advocates, and closer to the Bible, too.
Ed Darrell | 10.04.05 - 10:58 pm | #

David,

Not having access to the original language text, I'm always struck that each of the gospels have literal quotes that describe more-or-less the same events but use different words. If you believe the bible is inerrant, and assuming it's not just a matter of different erroneous translations, how is this not an error to have Mathew say they spoke one set of words while Luke says they spoke another? If Jesus (and others) spoke at all they certainly spoke a specific set of words; why not stick to those words? In the cases of Jesus they were supposedly God's own words, so they must have been the best possible choice! This sort of discrepancy appears a huge number of times in the three different English language translations of the Bible that I've seen. What's up with that?
doubting thomas | 10.04.05 - 11:02 pm | #

A little common sense for the doubters, please. Four different Gospel writers may record different parts of the same conversation. How is that an error or discrepancy?

Translations from one language to another may lose some meaning such as the Greek has different words for different kinds of love, but in English there is just one word. However, this is not an error or discrepancy.

Again, more common sense. Just because translations may use different wording styles (KJV, nKJV, NASB, NIV as examples), it doesn't mean that the meaning is different.

I'm with David on the Bible. The Bible is God's truth to us. More people need to know the Truth.
Elvis | 10.04.05 - 11:15 pm | #

David: Because there are tons of contradictions within all five books of the old testament as well. If you honestly read the bible and believe that it is infallible, then you have no common sense.
Jeremy | Homepage | 10.04.05 - 11:37 pm | #

Ed, do not mix up biblical literality with inerrancy. A common mistake.

Doubting Thomas,

You ask a very good question.

It bears upon several issues, including what is meant by inspiration. It is not that the writers were "possessed", i.e., that the hand holding the pen was used in a way that was out the writer's control. Nor was it dictation. The writers were writing, but protected by the Holy Spirit from erring.

As to different quotes, this was quite common at the time. Then, a quote signified that you accurately represented the content of a quote rather than word-for-word. We still do something similar today when you see things like:

"He said that ‘he [the defendant, John Galt] pulled the trigger.’"

Jeremy,

Your question about contradictions is a serious one. Most contradictions are easily resolved. Many have to do with the fact that in biblical Hebrew genealogies are not used as chronologies. Books have been written (Norman Geisler’s When Critics Ask, Hank Hanergraaff has another one) to resolve co-called contradictions. Also, Biblical inerrancy does not rule out translation errors. When all is said and done, there are a handful of "contradictions" for which I do not have a satisfactory explanation. However, even this exercise misses the boat on biblical inerrancy (which by no means implies that I will be able to resolve to my satisfaction all problems in my bible.)

Biblical inerrancy is a sort of bootstrapping. Starting from the assumption that God exists and that the gospels are at least "reasonable" historic accounts, we can demonstrate that the bible is either inspired and inerrant, or it is a pack of lies. I will have a post on this in a month or so when I begin posting notes from my latest Sunday School.

As for common sense, I am once again arguing over at the Panda’s Thumb. Of course I have no common sense.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.05.05 - 7:03 am | #

David,

Thanks for bringing up the distinction between "innerrancy" and "literality". Indeed, they are often conflated. It doesn't help that so-called fundamentalists do so with intention. The practice of reading the bible like a plain factual text (a kin to how one might read a newspaper) is a thoroughly modern practice that is quite in contrast to the historical practice of the church. By faith one can regard the bible as innerrant quite simply because it is the agency of the Holy Spirit that makes the written texts known as the bible a vehicle of the Word of God. Apart from God's agency, the words on paper are merely words of men.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.05.05 - 12:21 pm | #

i appreciate the thoughts you think and the things you write...tread softly, though...everything is analyzed by people...always be specific whenever you can...it disarms people...i know you're aware of that...but it's worth being reminded of...
Luke Patin | Homepage | 10.05.05 - 2:33 pm | #

I don't agree with everything Greg Koukl says, but he handled the complementarity question quite well. (I wish he hadn't kept spelling it "complimentary," though.) It just doesn't work--you can't separate science and theology into non-interacting realms and say they're both equally true. It doesn't work philosophically, and it really fails biblically.
Tom Gilson | Homepage | 10.05.05 - 3:22 pm | #

Biblical inerrancy is a sort of bootstrapping. Starting from the assumption that God exists and that the gospels are at least "reasonable" historic accounts, we can demonstrate that the bible is either inspired and inerrant, or it is a pack of lies. I will have a post on this in a month or so when I begin posting notes from my latest Sunday School.

Ed,

Who said that was the traditional view?

I don't see any conflict in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 over the creation of woman. Genesis 1 is a high level description while Genesis 2 gets into a little more detail. We do the same thing today with summaries and the details on books, movies, etc. If I read a short description on the back of the DVD case and see the movie, should I say that the two things contradict? No, one is a summary while the other contained the details.

The contradictions that Jesus discussed were the things that groups like the Pharisees did, not contradictions with the Bible.
Elvis | 10.12.05 - 11:08 pm | #

Ed makes a good point which is effectively that requiring literal interpretations of scripture as a general rule has at least two problems. One, it often requires one to overlook or obfuscate rather obvious contradictions that arise from such a reading. Second, the practice is not at all consistent with the historic practice of the church or even, as Ed points out, prior to the church. Simply put, the plain text reading of scripture as if it were a factual newspaper account is a thoroughly modern invention as is the whole of the phenonemenon often misleadingly referred to as "fundamentalism". Biblical literalism (which is distinct from a faith-based belief in inerrancy as pointed out above) is an aberrant practice that makes lies and fairy tales out of the gift of scripture. Elvis, are you aware that the first and second creation stories are derived from different sources? That doesn't mean that they can't share a common message about God as creator but it does explain the reason there are obvious contradictions when the two are taken to be literal historical accounts. Why do you insist on distorting scripture as if the very words (translated and retranslated)themselves were God's Word?

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.13.05 - 10:58 am | #

Compare the order of creation in Genesis 1 with the order of creation in Genesis 2. Wholly apart from the other animals coming before Man in Genesis 1, and after Man in Genesis 2, the ancients noted that in Genesis 1 Man and Woman are created at the same time -- but in Genesis 2 Man is alone, and God creates a Woman for Man. What happened to that first Woman?

This gave rise to the Lilith story in Jewish tradition. That story itself is quite ancient, so we know that the ancients recognized the contradiction.
Ed Darrell | 10.14.05 - 4:49 am | #

Ed,

There is no conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. This is the equivalent of my coming on PT and asking "what good is half an eye?" It has been addressed so many times and in so many places that it is hardly worth mentioning.

There is nothing in the Hebrew that demands that God created the animals at that time, just before he brought them to be named. It is a reiteration that God had created the animals--the time at which he did so is not specified. Even the english translation is perfectly compatible with the way we speak today--we often remind someone of an old detail before talking about a new detail, with nothing implied about concurrance.

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

Just like,

"The player hit five homeruns, and the manager brought him to the reporter in the lockerroom."

Does not require that the player just hit 5 homeruns, or that the reporter was in the lockerroom before he hit them.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 6:02 am | #

Well, you can say there is no conflict between Genesis 1 and 2. But that is the equivalent of saying "Isaiah didn't know his scripture."

I know the revisionist view is there is no conflict, but I'll stick with tradition on this one, thank you.

The difficulty isn't really in the creation of the animals so much as the absence of Woman. In Genesis 1 she is created with Man, at the same time. In Genesis 2, she's gone.

Where did she go?
Ed Darrell | 10.15.05 - 5:14 pm | #

Hardly "revisionist."

And Gen. 2 simply elaborates. Zooms in, as it were, on the creation of man and woman. No conflict--not even the hint of one.

Why is it the equivalent of saying Isaiah doesn't know scripture?
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.15.05 - 6:18 pm | #

Because Isaiah names Lilith. To claim now that the story that gave rise to Lilith is just misunderstood means that the author misunderstood the scriptures on which the story is based.
Ed Darrell | 10.16.05 - 2:29 pm | #

No, Isaiah does not mention Adam's "first wife Lilith." You need to stay away from the lunatic fringe crowd.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.16.05 - 3:18 pm | #

I think of Genesis as God's explanation to us of who we are and who He is. It was given to the Jews at a time when the wheel seemed like a big improvement. I don't think a treatise on big bang nucleosythesis or details on RNA really would have been relevant at the time. Looking for scientific or historical exactness is pointless. Genesis is about how man came to be separated from God.

Of course, you can always read scripture seeking contradictions instead of the message.
Jacob Yoder | 10.16.05 - 10:27 pm | #

Amen to that, Jacob. I'd add that is also about who God is and who(se) we are. That the Holy Spirit can deliver that message of God's Word in reading and hearing Genesis does not require that the stories be anything more or less than they are.
Shaggy Maniac | 10.17.05 - 10:28 am | #

Who is the Lilith Isaiah names, then? Why can't we trust Isaiah?
Ed Darrell | 10.17.05 - 8:30 pm | #

Ed,

What are you talking about? What verse in Isaiah talks about Lilith? I don't see anything in Isaiah that talks about it.

The closest I can find is Isaiah 34:14. And, if one says the translations are different, take it back to the Hebrew. The Hebrew appears to be talking about an owl as the content is right in the middle of all other kinds of animals. Think about it, if that reference is to a female human, then it is way out of place in the middle of the animals.

It's not that we can't trust Isaiah. It's what you want to think.
Anonymous | 10.17.05 - 9:01 pm | #

Isaiah 34.14 names Lilith. Some translations change it to an owl. Lilith's story holds that she was cast out of Eden to the desert, where she became a demon. She ruled the animals of the desert.

If you argue that the story isn't well explained there, check the Talmud. In full context, it's clear what Isaiah is referring to, or rather, to whom Isaiah refers. In any case, the Talmud is also clear, which is a corroboration which makes denial of the Lilith story silly, and shows clearly, again, that the ancients understood that there is a contradiction between the two creation stories. It's no big deal for people who understand the theological purpose of the creation stories -- it's only a problem for latter-day re-interpreters who claim, against tradition, that one of the Genesis stories should be taken literally.

I prefer the traditional Christian view, you're making an argument for the latter-day, Darby view.

If you want to make the case, make it. What did Darby know that Isaiah didn't? Why should we trust Darby over the Bible and tradition?

But please recognize what it is you argue for and against. You may well have a case for Darby over Isaiah. Tell us what it is.
Ed Darrell | 10.23.05 - 8:18 pm | #