- Hi Todd,
I forgot about this newsgroup as I've been too busy with other
things, then came across it from a link on your Truth Filter website
I had a disagreement with a fundamentalist friend of mine yesterday
(Saturday) regarding Biblical inerrancy. He is one of the spiritual
leaders of a Bible study I go to on Friday evenings. Anyway, at the
end of the study this last Friday I got into an argument with someone
who claimed that there were no errors in the Bible, and that it was
completely correct because it was God's word. I'm not sure if he was
referring to the original autographs or the present translations, but
when he said this applied to everything, including science, so I
quoted him the obscure passage in Lev. 11:23 regarding insects or
creeping things (depending on the translation) with four legs. There
was then an argument about the non-existance of such creatures, then
everybody dispersed for the evening.
Obviously this guy then spoke with his spiritual leader, as the
following morning (yesterday) I happened to be at the home of the
spiritual leader on some other business, when he approached me and
acused me of being a sceptic, and will go to hell. He presumably
thinks he knows me as well as Jesus Christ, so he can judge me
accordingly, even though he only sees me a few hours once a week on
average. Anyway, at issue is not Biblical inerrancy of the original
autographs per se, which the spiritual leader accepts completely and
without question, what is at issue is treating present translations
as "magic" books that can be used to explain everything and anything,
and if it's in the Bible it must be true regardless of the truth.
At other times I've had arguments with people in this group about
certain interpretations and contradictions in the Bible, so this is
not new, but just came to a head yesterday. It seems that it's out
of bounds to critizise the Bible and point out contradictions, you
are presumably just supposed to accept everything you are told, and
to be a good Christian you are not supposed to be sceptical.
Nevertheless, as I said, I didn't get into an argument about the
original autographs, which is completely useless, but modern
I've been in the church for many years (not in that particular Bible
study), but the first time I heard, as far as I can remember,
Biblical inerrancy spelt out so clearly was a couple of years ago by
this same spiritual leader. Ironically enough, that got my interest
going by checking up this claim on the Internet, and guess what, I
found that the are contradictions which falsify the claim of
inerrancy of at least the present translations. If as a Christian
one seeks out the truth, that must include any truth which
contradicts what is written in the Bible. At issue are not the
central doctrins of Christianity, but a claim that there are no
errors or contradictions at all in the Bible, or at least if there
are, I'm supposed to keep quite about them and not rock the boat. On
the other hand if someone makes an erroneous claim based on his idea
of the Bible, then I see nothing wrong in using the very same Bible
to show that he is wrong. No matter how trivial Lev. 11:23, or other
similar examples are, they are sufficient to falsify the claim of
inerrant present translations at least.
Perhaps I'm guilty of the sin of pride, which this guy mentioned to
me, and perhaps I should just keep quiet when someone tries to argue
that the Bible is inerrant, but it's difficult to resist bringing up
examples to show that it is not inerrant. What I find very strange
is the concept of having to accept Biblical inerrancy in order to be
a good Christian.
Stangely enough the spritual leader accepts the great age of the
earth, and is not a YEC, though he rejects evolution. However, over
a year ago I had an argument with him regarding the YEC beliefs of
some of the high profile religious leaders in the USA.
Christopher M. Sharp
> >I got into an argument with someone
> > who claimed that there were no errors in the Bible,......
> Since the 'original autographs' are not known to exist .......in no
> way proofread them.
> > CHRISTOPHER but when he said this applied to everything, including science,
I think most Christians would limit the Bible's authority to matters of
faith and doctrine. It would not claim to be a scientific textbook.
> > quoted him the obscure passage in Lev. 11:23snip
> > was then an argument about the non-existance of such creatures,Sam
> Leviticus also refers to rabbits chewing their cuds (they don't produce
> cuds) and snakes (serpents) eating dirt (snakes don't eat dirt).
> Genesis 30:37-39 describes Jacob as believing ....... Obviously,
> Jacob did not have a knowledge of genetics nor did the writer of Genesis.
It seems obvious that this is not a lot of help to people who might be
interested in finding the relevance of christianity and the bible to
> .. excerpted from the New American Bible whose scholars had theSam
> honesty to.... explain...... Genesis 30:39-42:
> "13 [39-42] Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among
> simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring
> of breeding animals. Thus, the rods on which Jacob had whittled stripes or
> bands or chevron marks were thought to cause the female goats that looked at
> them to bear kids with lighter-colored marks on their dark hair, while the
> gray ewes were thought to bear lambs with dark marks on them simply by
> visual cross-breeding with the dark goats."
> Perhaps this information will be of value to you in your next discussion
> regarding Biblical errancy.
>....... being a sceptic, and will go to hell.
fortunately for me, an ordinary Christian, the bible is full of
sceptics. I am reassured when I read about them, that having the one
sure belief and faith that makes me a Christian, God still puts up with
me, tolerates me when I am sceptical.
> Its never wrong to question or to be skeptical. Skepticism is an extremely
> valuable attribute. Skepticism leads to investigation which will will often
> provide answers in the light of truth.
> > Perhaps I'm guilty of the sin of pride, which this guy mentioned to
> > me, and perhaps I should just keep quiet when someone tries to argue
> > that the Bible is inerrant,.......
spend no more time arguing, read it for yourself and you will find the
bits that 'speak' to your situation. eg today thinking abou just where
I stand on creation/evolution, I found something that could endorse a
Big Bang origin of the universe, but a Big Bang engineered by God. " He
who created the heavens and spread them out" ! an expanding universe!
> ........ Their belief that the Bible is inerrant does not validate Biblical
> inerrancy. The "Flat Earth Society" was based on what its members perceived
A good example - if they walked far enough they would find the truth
for themselves. If you read far enough in the bible I think you will
find that it validates itself in the areas of life it was meant to