The inerrancy of the Bible - help me understand, please

[HoneyBunny]

First, I may not be posting this in the correct place, so I'll apologize up front for that.

 

Second, I'm coming at this from the prospective of someone who was raised as an Ebil Catholic, and never has read the Bible seriously, so you'll have to forgive me that, too.

 

Lori A's posts, along with lots of others here in Snarkdom (my favorite kingdom) state that they are simply posting Biblical truths. The WORD, and all that...

 

I recall reading a book about PHC or Liberty in the past couple of years, and there was a comment made about Creationism, and a professor at one of those colleges said that if they gave in on Creationism, it throws the entire Bible into question, and they simply couldn't have that. So...the Earth is 7000 years old, end of discussion!

 

Which led me to scratch my head and wonder, if it's been scientifically proven that the Bible is absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong in that one aspect, couldn't it be equally wrong in all other aspects? I mean, I couldn't give a FRA if people want to believe that cave men rode dinosaurs, but I care deeply that the Bible is used as proof that God hates da gays, that women are, by design, weaker than men, and that wives must submit to their husbands.

 

Then there's the whole cherry-picking thing, and the comments about the Old Testament no longer being valid, but the New Testament still is, etc. It all seems very questionable to me, a self-proclaimed agnostic.

 

So, I'm asking the FJ-ers who do believe in the Bible, whether you believe it's the actual word of God or not, to comment. Do you believe in the Bible despite these limitations, or do you believe science has it all wrong?

[Swamptribe]

The problem is, some groups insist that their 'literal interpretation' of the bible is inerrant.

The term 'literal interpretation' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a literal interpretation. There may be a literal translation, but no interpretation is literal.

There is no problem with the lessons and teachings of the Christian bible if it isn't taken as inerrant. When one looks at much of the bible as allegorical, some of it as written by bronze age shepherds and describing the world around them and their interactions with that world. It is a guide and a history, not a law book.

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

From what I have seen most of the 'bible bashers' have failed to do any real research on where the bible came from, there are gospels that have been edited and some left out completely. Personally I think from the research I have done that the bible was made to act as a general how to live book as science was not exactly their strong point things like health and laws had to be accepted by uneducated superstitious people. Eg back in the day pigs carried a parasite which was deadly, so not having the science but seeing people die after eating pork products they said pigs where unclean etc, everyone would accept it. But now science has shown the real reason and offered a solution. But I think the biggest issue is the difference between faith and truth. Truth is based on facts, faith on beliefs true Christians are actually agnostic theists, they believe and have faith without knowledge, people like Lori Alexander who claim to know the truth are actually going against the bible because to have knowledge and truth and facts is to no longer have faith which is something people need to enter heaven ( if it exist ).

These are just my thoughts, I will share if asked but what others believe is their choice and right.

[Arete]

By "believe in the Biblle", do you mean "has a place in my religious beliefs/life"? So, yes, the Bible has a place in my religious life. It is an account of theists at different times and in different places to answer 2 fundamental questions of existence "why are we here", "why do we suffer". The stories, poems, parables, wisdom literature, letters, metaphors, etc are the written attempts by people who believe in God to work out those two questions. It was never intended by its authors to be a science or history book. The groups that compiled the official canon had particular theological and political agendas.

Christianity existed for 300 years with dozens of Gospels circulating before the four canonical Gospels were decided. The church existed before the book, which is why I can't take these claims of inerrancy or Bible only seriously. I don't lose a moment's sleep cherry picking because the whole book represents different perspectives on the nature of God, inviting you to weigh them and draw conclusions.

I recognize that translation, context, and culture, are important when reading any book. I don't get bent over the fact the Bible may superficially claim 6 days of creation even though the universe is billions of years old because there is no evidence the authors thought they were making a definitive statement of age that could never be revised. They were making a theological statement: God created, and adding their understanding and interpretation of that process. Science for scientific understanding, bible for theological understanding. Different interpretations because human beings are all different and are not going to react uniformly to the same information, or the same story.

Finally, literal interpretation of the Bible line by line is a uniquely American evangelical innovation, and less than 300 years old. That's all I've got.

[gustava]

If you have to ask about the true Word of the Lord, then take ye off to the

prayer closet. :mrgreen:

[Coconut Flan]

Christianity existed for 300 years with dozens of Gospels circulating before the four canonical Gospels were decided. The church existed before the book, which is why I can't take these claims of inerrancy or Bible only seriously. I don't lose a moment's sleep cherry picking because the whole book represents different perspectives on the nature of God, inviting you to weigh them and draw conclusions.

This is one of the things that bothers me most about the fundies and inerrancy. How can someone seriously talk about God dictating the Bible as some of them do when it was a council of humans who voted on the canon? Also there are at least four different Christian canons of what is in the Bible: protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and I believe Coptic.

Finally, literal interpretation of the Bible line by line is a uniquely American evangelical innovation, and less than 300 years old. That's all I've got.

This. Christianity has been around almost 2000 years and this lack of understanding of how the Bible developed and should be used is 100 to 300 years old depending on which history of fundyism is to be believed. It seems the extreme fundyism was rebellion against Biblical scholarship. Most of fundyism to me comes from rebellion against something rather than a positive force.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm answering from a Jewish POV here. Like AreteJo, I don't see the bible as something that was intended to be a history or science book.

There are all sorts of things that are missing from the first few chapters of Genesis if you are looking at it from a history and science perspective. Why don't we read about the discovery of fire, or the invention of the wheel, or tons of other developments? From a theological perspective, these things aren't considered important.

From my religious POV, the bible contains many layers of meaning. In addition, while the eternal truths of the universe may not change, human progress and understanding do. Religion is really all about mere mortals trying to grasp the eternal truths of the universe, which is ultimately an impossible task. So, things get simplified, metaphors are used, and we realize that our understanding is very limited. In Judaism, interpretations and different types of scholarship emerged over time in different eras - the Talmud (Oral Law) was heavily influenced by Greek thought and logic, at other times you had more emphasis on mysticism, and you constantly had the religion responding to the changing needs and perceptions of the people. For example, in a world where people know about math and science and are used to abstract thought, you can discuss theoretical concepts like Kabbalah, which are metaphorical and confusing, without going nuts.

Some attempts to reconcile religion and science are interesting. For example, I heard someone say that the curses in Genesis 2 roughly line up with the differences between homo sapiens and animals: pain in childbirth increased when we walked upright and got bigger brains, humans worry about death in a way that animals do not, animal graze while humans farm. However, I don't think it's necessary. Spiritual truths exist on their own, and I'm not crazy about any forced attempt to reconcile every point in the Bible with science.

Some Biblical passages do not come with rational explanations, and that's ok. I'm not picking on anyone here, and I know it's a really common interpretation, but things like the dietary laws in Leviticus do not come with explanations, period. There's no real evidence that it was ever done for health reasons - that's pure speculation.

[formergothardite]

I was always told that the men who put the Bible together were divinely inspired by God so that it is inerrant even if men put it together.

You will never get a biblical literalists to admit that they cherry pick what they take literally based upon what suits their lifestyle, but that is exactly what they are doing. And it is probably why all the biblical literalists are not answering on this thread. It is really hard to defend the inerrant literalism of the Bible to people who know a whole lot about the Bible.

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

I was always told that the men who put the Bible together were divinely inspired by God so that it is inerrant even if men put it together.

You will never get a biblical literalists to admit that they cherry pick what they take literally based upon what suits their lifestyle, but that is exactly what they are doing. And it is probably why all the biblical literalists are not answering on this thread. It is really hard to defend the inerrant literalism of the Bible to people who know a whole lot about the Bible.

I wonder who said these men were "devinely inspired by god"? Was it men? Or was it self proclaimed? Coz god told me to collect 2 of each brand of "grape juice" and call together the devinely inspired FJer's. We are to drink from the sacred "grape juice" and post TRUTHS, snarks, and amusing anecdotes of our encounters with the people who annoy Him most... Fundamentalists!

Hey if they could be devinely inspired so could I. :cray-cray:

[HoneyBunny]

Thank you for your responses. The how to book makes perfect sense to me given the absence of scientific and medical and psychological knowledge back then. But that's also where it loses me. If it was a how to book for the early 2nd century (NT), why is it considered relevant today? We don't read the Farmers Almanac from 1860 and use it as a life guide today. And even if people want to use it as a life guide, certainly that doesn't mean that what it states needs to be acknowledged and internalized by society at large?

And where I really get lost is when Lori says the Old Testament has been completed- resolved- I forget the word- which means God didn't really mean all that nasty stuff written there so we no longer have to follow it. WTF?

As I said, I think it's a wonderful thing we live in a country where people can believe what they want. But when people try to tie it to government and use a document to justify human rights violations, I get a little perturbed. And sitting in the stuffy prayer closet isn't clearing up anything.

[uber frau]

You're doing it all wrong. You're using regular logic when you should be using circular reasoning.

The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Therefore the Bible is true.

[Full enough quiver]

Why can't fundies understand that the bible, like life, isn't all or nothing? You can acknowledge that there are inaccuracies and contradictions without throwing out the whole thing. There is plenty of wisdom to be had in the bible(and the Koran, Torah, whatever). You can still believe in the overall truth and beauty of whatever holy book you happen to follow. You can still use it as a guide for your life, and a source of wisdom, while acknowledging the limitations of the humans who wrote it and translated (and re translated) it. Everyone cherry picks. It would be impossible to follow the bible literally word for word. I believe the punishment for homosexuality is the same as the one for wearing mixed fibers, or eating pork. Last I checked, they all still had the eyes they're supposed to have gouged out for looking lustfully at women (I'm looking at you, Doug Phillips). They also do a lot of bitching about the government their bible tells them to obey, and not a one seems to be loving their neighbor or helping the poor. They're the biggest cherry pickers of all.

woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Matthew 23:13

[Arete]

The New Testament did not exist in the second century. It was not compiled till the 4th century. Some communities may have had copies of some of the Pauline epistles, and some gospels were circulating, but there was no New Testament to read. The church was functioning without a canonical NT for over 300 years.

As to why it is still relevant, that is because it explores the big existential questions of humanity. To ask why still read it is like asking why we still read Shakespeare or the Iliad. It may have been written before the science of psychology was invented, but a lot of parts reveal that ancient man had a lot of the same hang ups and questions as we have today. For the religious believer it is a book with multiple answers and meanings, and you can spend your life trying to understand them.

[RosyDaisy]

How can a book be inerrant if it is missing some scriptures (Dead Sea Scrolls, lost scriptures, forbidden scriptures, the Nag Hamaadi Scrolls to name a few). Do I believe the scriptures (those in and not in the Bible) are divinely inspired? Yes. Why? Faith. They were however written by men not by God himself. Anybody who has read the Bible knows that it is full of contradictions, therefore it is not meant to be a strict book of laws and rules.

[formergothardite]

How can a book be inerrant if it is missing some scriptures (Dead Sea Scrolls, lost scriptures, forbidden scriptures, the Nag Hamaadi Scrolls to name a few). Do I believe the scriptures (those in and not in the Bible) are divinely inspired? Yes. Why? Faith. They were however written by men not by God himself. Anybody who has read the Bible knows that it is full of contradictions, therefore it is not meant to be a strict book of laws and rules.

That is the thing, the fundies don't see the contradictions and if someone points them out to them they will twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why it isn't really a contradiction.

christiancourier.com/articles/689-does-the-bible-contain-contradictions

This person admits that there are "copy errors" but claims that this doesn't mean that there are contradictions.

angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/contradictions.html

[2xx1xy1JD]

Talking about the Bible as "a book" at all doesn't even make sense. It's a collection of books, written at different times by different people in different styles for different purposes.

One thing I really don't understand is why all fundies wouldn't study Greek and Hebrew. If you believe that every word is divine or divinely-inspired, wouldn't you want to study those words? Wouldn't you at least want to make it perfectly clear to people that translations may be a useful tool, but a translation is quite different from reading the original language?

[bumblebee]

One thing I really don't understand is why all fundies wouldn't study Greek and Hebrew. If you believe that every word is divine or divinely-inspired, wouldn't you want to study those words? Wouldn't you at least want to make it perfectly clear to people that translations may be a useful tool, but a translation is quite different from reading the original language?

Indeed, although that would require more than SOTDRT education. I do know a trad Catholic who studied Greek and Hebrew for this reason and I think some denominations require their training ordinands to at least study the basics. Of course this would be the denominations that accept the idea of "biblical scholarship" in the first place.

My Anglican church is pretty far from inerrancy. Our very keen curate recently went to Turkey and came back showing pictures of Nicaea and giving talks about the Nicene council etc. They've also done "so you want to ask questions about the Bible, huh?" events where the answers aren't just "because it says so".

Besides as everyone has already said above *everyone* cherry picks the Bible (or any other religious texts ever) or if they don't I'd ask them why they aren't protesting about Friday night football or shellfish as much as they are protesting about gay rights. Or why they aren't offering to become someone's 300th concubine.

I think Islam says that the Koran the literal word and therefore any study of it must be done in Arabic, the original language.

[karen77]

What I have never understood, is how people can take the Bible so literally when they don't have an original Aramaic (or whatever language) version to read, then to understand that with the slang or terms from that time period (where would that come from)

Language evolves over time, take the word gay for instance. 100 years ago, it meant happy and joyful, and now, yeah, it can still be used that way, but it's evolved into it's latest forms (same sex orientation, and something stupid).

So to take it all so literally without that knowledge, I just can't reconcile that.

[2xx1xy1JD]

What I have never understood, is how people can take the Bible so literally when they don't have an original Aramaic (or whatever language) version to read, then to understand that with the slang or terms from that time period (where would that come from)

Language evolves over time, take the word gay for instance. 100 years ago, it meant happy and joyful, and now, yeah, it can still be used that way, but it's evolved into it's latest forms (same sex orientation, and something stupid).

So to take it all so literally without that knowledge, I just can't reconcile that.

There is SO MUCH that is simply lost in translation. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:

1. King James Version (KJV) translates the Hebrew words "ha-adam" and "ha-ish" as "man". Adam, however, means something closer to "first human, created from the dirt". When fundies start to argue that it was man, not woman, who was created in God's image, I have to roll my eyes.

2. Helpmeet actually means "help opposite".

3. There's a lot of word play and puns that just don't translate. What is the connection between Adam and the ground? Or Isaac and laughter? Or many of the names of Jacob's sons and the reasons that their mothers gave for those names? In the original Hebrew, the connections between the words are obvious.

4. Isaiah 7:14 doesn't use the Hebrew word that specifically means virgin.

5. Proverbs 23 is in the form of verse, not the typical style used for commandments. Fundies who selectively quote Proverbs 23:13-14 never mention that it's part of a larger passage of verse that starts with Proverbs 23:1-2 - which talks about stabbing yourself in the throat if you have a big appetite. When you read the entire passage as a whole, there's no way that you can take it as a literal commandment.

[HoneyBunny]

I have just finished watching a documentary available on Netflix called "For the Bible Tells Me So", which takes on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. On theory it offers is that homophobia is rooted in hatred of women, which is also a basis for patriarchy. It's compelling viewing, for those interested, but, its discussion of the genesis of Christian homophobia did nothing to change my views, supported by many here, that the Bible was never intended to be taken as an inerrant guide for living in the 21st (or 20th, etc.) century.

[formergothardite]

What I have never understood, is how people can take the Bible so literally when they don't have an original Aramaic (or whatever language) version to read, then to understand that with the slang or terms from that time period (where would that come from)

Language evolves over time, take the word gay for instance. 100 years ago, it meant happy and joyful, and now, yeah, it can still be used that way, but it's evolved into it's latest forms (same sex orientation, and something stupid).

So to take it all so literally without that knowledge, I just can't reconcile that.

What I heard growing up was that the KJV was divinely inspired and divinely preserved so we didn't need to know the original language. That is why posters like Westchamps claimed that certain Bible verses were completely straightforward and had nuances and then couldn't handle it when Curious showed them that things got lost in translation and that there is a lot of difference from what was originally written and what it was translated to say.

[2xx1xy1JD]

What I heard growing up was that the KJV was divinely inspired and divinely preserved so we didn't need to know the original language. That is why posters like Westchamps claimed that certain Bible verses were completely straightforward and had nuances and then couldn't handle it when Curious showed them that things got lost in translation and that there is a lot of difference from what was originally written and what it was translated to say.

So, do they believe that there was essentially another divine revelation to the translators? And that God revealed this text in English, and only English? Do they think that people who speak French, Spanish, Mandarin, etc. should learn English in order to study the Bible?

What is their source for saying that KJV was divinely inspired?

I've done bible studies in both Jewish and secular settings (university course on ancient Israelite history), and it was always perfectly clear that you go back to the original language. My Hebrew isn't fluent so I use translations, but there are still references back to the original words and explanations of related words, grammar, etc.

I don't know much Greek, but I got curious and took a look at Ephesians 5:22 after Lori and other kept insisting on using an English dictionary to define submission. To my surprise, I learned that the original Greek text doesn't even have the word submission in this line - it was added by the translators.

[formergothardite]

Well, it doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense but they claim that God's word is inspired whenever it is translated into another language, but the KJV is the only inspired English version. The other English translations are not divine or inspired.

It is not only the originals which are inspired, but also the different languages into which God's Word is translated. Contrary to popular theological teaching, the originals are NOT even found in Hebrew, Greek and Chaldean. According to Psalm 119:89, the originals existed in Heaven before the first Word in Genesis was ever given to mankind. Psalm 119:89, “For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven.†The originals are in Heaven.

If your pastor says he believes that the King James Bible is a divinely preserved translation of the inspired Word of God, ask him again if he believes if the King James Bible is inspired? That is the big question... does your so-called Christian leader believe that the King James Bible is God's inspired Words? I say to you truthfully, the King James Bible is INSPIRED word-for-word.

And their source for the KJV is the only "real" Bible seems to be this:

You look at all the humble preachers who rip, holler, and cry aloud against the wickedness and falsehoods of our generation... ask them what Bible they use? They use the King James Bible! Then you look and see all the buzzards who say that we don't have God's Word today, who claim that the King James Bible is errant, flawed, and not inspired? You'll find that they're some deadbeat college professor, a milquetoast theologian, or some fancy-britches golf-club pastor who is no longer small in his own eyes.

jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/KJB/inspired.htm

[2xx1xy1JD]

FG, you've not only answered my question, you've also taught me why fundies are so against anything other than SOTDRT education!

Proper argument, logic, intelligent discussion of issues and citing sources are apparently tools of the devil.

On the other hand, if it appears in a tract on the internet, if someone uses all caps when they tell us KJV is INSPIRED and if they tell us that any other belief is heresy - well gosh darn it, it must be true!

And yeah, if some fancy intellectual who went to college and everything believes something, of course it's wrong. That makes total sense.