Five Views on Inerrancy

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

That is a good summary. He also has very good insight. Good choice. Thanks.

There is another way. How about that the bible was written by at least 70 human authors over a period of 1700 years and thus contains a lot of errors and is fallible in what it says about God.

That answer leaves too many questions unanswered for me. To many continuities over those 70 authors over 1700 years to dismiss without a careful account.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

To many continuities over those 70 authors over 1700 years to dismiss without a careful account.

Too many discontinuities, inconsistencies, and contradictions over those 70 authors over 1700 years to accept the claim of inerrancy and infallibility about God. People have been doing careful accounts for 2000 years and yet the lack of agreement is astonishing. This lack of agreement has been the cause of a lot of wars, killings, injustices, and intolerance between nations and people from long ago until the present time.

[Randy]

Always good to have you question.

I’d be interested in your reading the portion by Enns in there on the summary. He’s Harvard educated. It’s short. He is not an inerrantist, but calls it “incarnational.” Like God’s word being translated to imperfect body, the Bible is His word translated through imperfect eyes. I think that’s the truest undrestanding, though none of them is perfect. Greg Boyd, in “Cross Vision,” says that we have our clearest impression of what God is through Jesus’ gift on the Cross–a better revelation, as He said. The OT had many mistakes about how they perceived God (as really wanting genocide, etc).

But Swamidass also points out some good things.

[Mark]

I would personally not tell an atheist to read something on the inspiration of scripture if he doesn’t believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Unless that’s a particular issue that’s KEEPING HIM from believing in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection.

Sorry to talk about @Patrick like he isn’t here!

[Randy]

Well, he has a very good point that I have struggled with (and I’m sure we all do) about the genocide. Enns deals with it well, as does Boyd (from Yale, so they have really good credentials!). Not that there aren’t other ways, but I personally feel more comfortable with this way.

I’m open to feed back from @Patrick and you too!

[Mark]

I wrote my MDiv thesis on Origen of Alexandria’s interpretation of the genocide in Joshua and then argued in its favor dialoguing with but also agreeing with and SUPPLEMENTING stuff from Kenton Sparks (who basically takes Enns’ and Boyd’s position).

If you are interested, perhaps I could send you a bit of it. There’s a lot I would change now about it but it was well received. It got an A from my first reader and an A+ from my second reader, so hopefully there’s some things that might be beneficial for you in it. Maybe send me an email on here?

[Randy]

Sure, I’ll PM you. Thanks.

[Patrick]

@Mark

I would personally not tell an atheist to read something on the inspiration of scripture if he doesn’t believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

It is really important for atheists to read and study the Bible very carefully. Look at the evidence yourself, read all you can. Look at the history of the cultures and look at the anthropological artifacts. Then you decide what is true and what isn’t.

Bible Museum says five of its Dead Sea Scrolls are fake

[Patrick]

@Randy

I’m open to feed back from @Patrick and you too!

The OT contains a lot of genocide by God. Given that history has shown that a global flood genocide didn’t occur 4350 years ago killing all but 8 people, and all animals to two each, the God of Noah looks to be an imaginary God of a fictitious myth story. History has also shown that all genocides were done by people against other people, making God unnecessary in any genocide.

[Mung]

From the linked article:

“The Dead Sea Scrolls are a set of ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.”

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction

[Jeremy_Christian]

@Patrick

The OT contains a lot of genocide by God. Given that history has shown that a global flood genocide didn’t occur 4350 years ago killing all but 8 people, and all animals to two each, the God of Noah looks to be an imaginary God of a fictitious myth story. History has also shown that all genocides were done by people against other people, making God unnecessary in any genocide.

There’s some discussion on this topic that’s relevant here . It appears there’s good reason to think a lot of that OT genocide was inaccurate translation …

The Flood "Removed" not "Killed" Everyone?

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. The verb choice is not much different than “kill” other than it focuses more on removal from the earth. Reasonable local flood interpretations (assuming one accepts biblical authority) include: (1) taking the universal language (all, every, the earth) as hyperbole (as done by Longman and Walton); (2) understand “earth” to be “land” (i.e., a limited region); (3) taking “earth” as the known world from the author’s perspective; or (4) taking “earth” to be the world that the author cares about (though he technically knows of other peoples beyond this scope). Of course, one could understand the Bible to be teaching a universal (i.e., global) flood, but consider it mistaken due to modern scientific and historical knowledge.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@swamidass

@Jeremy_Christian, what is your thoughts on this?

I think the bible accomplishes exactly what it’s meant to in that it makes these stories known throughout the world, but I don’t think the term “inerrant” can be applied to it. This sets an expectation that I don’t think is accurate and can prove misleading.

If the bible were truly inerrant it would in itself be evidence that would undermine belief through faith. So, in that way, I think it’s exactly what it’s meant to be.

If it’s not already apparent, the concept of free will permeates my view extensively, and applies again here. It’s imperative that it be a willful choice to choose God. That that choice not be influenced or coaxed by things like a demonstrably inerrant bible.