A discussion about "inerrancy," inspiration, and creation
The following is an excerpt from a discussion I had with a friend about the concept of inerrancy, inspiration, and creation stories in Genesis. It is intended to spurn your thinking about these issues and to draw attention to the various ways Christians can read and interpret the Bible (and still be Christians).
My friend believes the Earth is several thousand years old. He had gotten into several debates with other ministers about inerrancy, inspiration, and creation. My friend sent me a whole lot of what these other ministers had said. My friend then asked me what I thought about it all.
His email is in black, my responses are in blue. I'll begin with my first response to my Friend:
Hey Friend,
Wow. That's a lot. To answer your question, I agree
with some things he said.
(1) Concerning "inerrancy," I don't use
the word because (a) the Bible never uses the word, especially because it's not
written in Latin, the source language of "inerrant," and (b) it has
such a bad history in church politics, especially among Southern Baptists.
Since the term is not biblical and used only within certain contexts, it can be
used in many ways: free from theological error, scientific error, language
errors, etc. Therefore, the problem is, "exactly what is the text
error-free from?" That is up to the person to decide since this term is
foreign to the text anyway.
My personal view is that (at least) the Bible is
theologically error free. God did not reveal to ancient people modern
cosmology, nuclear physics, biology, etc. Because of this, I must deduce that
God had no problem with ancient people being ignorant of scientific
discoveries. And, by the way, in a hundred years, they'll say the same thing
about us today! The point is, every generation learns more and at no time does
God reveal to us then or now more facts about our universe. He was chiefly
concerned with making sure theological truths were passed on.
(2) So, while it is certainly possible that
"yom" only meant a day (24-25 hours) to the person who wrote Genesis
1, it does not follow that we now have to believe that it took that long to
create something. To do so is to ignore the genre of the text. All ancient
people had cosmogonies - stories of how the world began. They told (1) who was
in charge; (2) why humans were created; and (3) the function of creation. When
read in that genre, Genesis really stands out. I agree closely with http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology-ebook/dp/B003VM8QK0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1399124410&sr=8-3&keywords=john+walton I encourage you to read that text. It's accessible.
You might not find his arguments compelling, but I
sure do. Most scholars in the field do, too. Determining the genre of the text
is the first, most vital step in understanding how to interpret it. And, I'm
convinced that Genesis 1 should not be read as a science textbook.
Finally, for me, it's not a slippery slope to doomsville.
It's a topic way too big for Facebook, but to say is succinctly: scholars
determine the genre, place the text in socio-historical contexts, and interpret
it the best we can.
Is the Bible authoritative for me personally?
Absolutely! It is the primary source of all Christian doctrine and revelation
concerning the gospel.
Friend
Cosmic Temple
Theory?
You are right this is too big for
Facebook. What is your email. I want to trade ideas.
(Then he emailed me and then I responded) ---
Thanks
Friend. I appreciate your view and agree with several things you said; on some
things, we part ways. Here are a few reflections. I don’t prefer to do too much
in email because it takes so long :) and because I can’t control “tone.”
I’ll do my best.
I believe in the inerrant word of God even if the word inerrant is
foreign to the text or to broad a term for many to accept. I understand you: “you believe.” That’s cool. I’m not
suggesting you can’t believe something. It does seem that
you’re trying to tell me what to believe in that you assume/argue that your view
is “truth.” I guess this means mine is not. I’m not sure. In any case, you
are free to believe whatever you want on this issue, because at no time
in the history of the early church was this term an issue of orthodoxy. This
is a PhD in Historical Theology speaking here, but you don’t have to trust me.
Go read the primary sources yourself. Finally, again, a chief reason I don’t
use the term is because of the very volatile way it’s been used in the previous
couple decades among Southern Baptists. The word Theology would have been foreign to the text as would the
word Trinity, but you find these concepts in Genesis in Day 6. I disagree, but I think I understand your point.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,
in our likeness, so that they may rule over the
fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild
animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created
mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female
he created them. (Genesis 1:26, 27 NIV) I think you’re using these first person plural pronouns to argue
for the Trinity. I’m not convinced at all. This plural usage is used throughout
the ancient world to refer to either “God and His armies (hosts)”
or “God and His divine council” - i.e., spiritual beings. You might be
right; it is possible. I just don’t think so whatsoever. Jews are not, and have
never been throughout history,Trinitarian. This is uniquely Christian
(with clear Jewish roots) and wasn’t revealed to humans until thousands of
years after Genesis was written.
Why is it ok to use the word Trinity or Theology, but not
Inerrant. Of course it’s “OK.”
I’ve never said it wasn’t “OK.” I told you why I don’t
use it. And, by the way, I feel much more comfortable using “theology”
and “Trinity” because these terms were used for centuries in the early
church and were held in broad agreement. If you can show me where inerrancy or
any other such view made it into the Creeds of the early church and you will
make this a big issue for me right away. Again I believe that God who inspired man in writing the Bible and
preserved it for us and who cannot lie and who knows everything is inerrant in
science, literature, theology, any subject or category you choose. Your pronoun antecedent is unclear here. I assume you
mean “God” when you say “who” twice. That is, you think God cannot
lie and knows everything, not “man.” If I’m right, then of course I concur
with you! Though, I would say God does not lie because of His
perfect character, not that He cannot lie (though this is a
philosophical distinction that is beyond the scope of this email). My only
point of contention here is what you assume in this sentence
and in the next one. . . “God who inspired man. . .” I wish I knew exactly
what that meant.
If I thought that fallible man wrote the bible then I would agree
with you that it is not infallible and not scientifically accurate.
Because I believe in God breathed scripture and a God that cannot lie I cannot
compromise by trying to add Man's fallible wisdom to what God clearly wrote.
So, this is where we might really
disagree. I do not know what you mean at all when you believe simultaneously
that “fallible man” did not write the Bible, but do “believe
God breathed scripture.” So, I don’t know how that process/event worked to you.
Clearly the Bible never explains the process. Do you believe the Bible fell
from Heaven? Did angels bring it to Jesus? Did Jesus write it? I’m really
asking; I really am interested. Did God take over humans (or one human?) into a
trance and they lost consciousness and became God’s stenographers? It sounds
like you believe like the Muslims do, viz., that Allah forced Mohammed to write
down the exact words Allah wanted. So, if God didn’t “add to Man’s
fallible wisdom,” it means you believe God speaks in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek,
and Latin? These must be God’s languages since God cannot use man in the
process. If so, do you only think the original languages of the
Bible are “God’s Word”? Does the English translation count at all? Do you
not read from the English translation? (Again, my tone here is sincere.)
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words
taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the
Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them
because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:12-14 NIV) I’m uncertain what this has to do at all with our discussion.
What Paul is addressing in his context at Corinth around 55 AD is certainly not
related to how the Bible is written nor how we should interpret it.
And my favorite
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you
about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of
his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice
came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with
him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven
when we were with him on the sacred mountain. We also have the prophetic
message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention
to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the
morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no
prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though
human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter
1:16-21 NIV) I have the same
struggle with this text as with the passage above. The one distinction here is
that 2 Peter speaks of prophets having words straight from God
(and of course, as you know, the Bible is not a collection of prophecies; it
includes some, and the Bible is really full of other things too). I’m guessing
that you think 2 Peter 20-21 applies to everything written in the Bible.
If you do, OK. I don’t. But, I’m not interesting in attempting to dissuade you.
I see no reason to apply these two verses to the entire Bible.
The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written
by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses about supernatural
events that fulfilled specific prophecies and they claim their origin to be of
supernatural rather than of human origin. I concur to a large extent, though I don’t find this compelling
concerning a significant portion of narratives in the Bible (which human was
the eyewitness to Genesis 1? You think all the parables are historical events?
There are thousands and thousands of verses in the Bible that have nothing to
do at all with fulfilling prophecies. Etc.)
Got this from Voddie Baucham's sermon entitled "Why I believe
the Bible is true" based on II Peter
while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving
and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have
become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how
from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2
Timothy 3:13-17 NIV)
This speaks to God's Expired Word. Like Exhaling. We
know from 2 Timothy where the Bible comes from, God Breathed it out. I hear you brother. It’s just that as I said above, you’re
filling in some huge gaps here in your explanation of the process.
Saying “God breathed it out” most certainly does not tell
me (1) how the process worked; (2) when it happened; (3) where it happened; (4)
to whom it happened; (5) or how to interpret the Bible. Instead, it merely
speaks of the ultimate source. And not to mention, this text in 2 Timothy says
nothing at all about the New Testament! When Paul wrote this,
(most of) the gospels didn’t exist, several of his letters weren’t written,
none of his letters were collected into groups, and none of
gospels (whichever ones existed) or any other document written at the time had
made it to the level of “scripture” in early Christianity. So, again, this
verse is always used to apply to all the Bible. If that’s what
you believe, cool. If you’re suggesting that Paul thought that a thing
called “New Testament” existed and that it was at the same level of
authority as the “Old Testament” when he wrote these verses, then I’m
not compelled whatsoever. That is patently false.
Let's frame our discussion on creation in Genesis as this is the
foundation of the rest of the bible and what I am really into now. Glad “you’re into it!” :) I don’t think it’s the foundation of the rest of the Bible,
even though I don’t know what “foundation” means here in this sentence to
you. Especially creation versus
millions if years of death, disease, and evolution before man hits the scene. I have much to say about this but I won’t.
If you hold to the cosmic temple view then I know that you are
attempting to consolidate what the Bible plainly says with what you have been
taught and believe about "science" mainly an ancient earth and
evolution. Brother, let’s not assume
anything at all about each other’s views. Feel free to ask me what I believe
and I’ll do my best to explain it to you. You have no idea what I believe about
evolution, “science,” or an ancient earth because you haven’t asked me. You will not be able to piece these together. Assertions are not arguments. I’m willing to be convinced that
what I believe will not ever be put together. But, I need evidence/arguments,
not assertions. It boils down to us not
trusting God's word and trying to add our current wisdom to help it
along. Brother, this is the part
where talking to people who hold your view gets me so sad and frustrated.
And I feel it here too. It is so offensive and unchristian to accuse me
of “not trusting God’s word” just because I might not agree
with your interpretation of the Bible. This infers that you think
St. Augustine and Origen didn’t trust in “God’s Word” because they held to
different views than you. In that case, you’ve just accused billions of other
Christians that exist and who have died because they disagreed with you.
Is this really necessary? I’m really asking. Really? Are you really
assuming that (1) I either see it your way and trust the Bible or (b) see it any
other way and don’t trust the Bible? I’m forced into these alternatives? This,
in my view, is the definition of fundamentalism. So, the most important
question to me for you is: “Is it possible in your view to trust
in the Bible (whatever that means) while at the same time not agree
completely with how you interpret Genesis (or some other text)? Are these
mutually exclusive? If so, why? As you taught me, eisegesis instead of exegesis. I taught you that?! Yeah!!! :)
I hope I am putting words in your mouth and you hold the Bible as
more than a source of good Theology. I have struck out three times thus
far in finding a common belief in the Bible with two pastors and a one year
seminary student. You are definitely right, the prevailing belief is in shying
away from Biblical absolutes. “struck out”? Could it be that you have simply disagreed with
three other fellow Christians who hold to a particular view of interpreting
Scripture that you don’t find compelling? Personally, I really hope our
correspondence isn’t just your attempt to see if you can get “four”
strike-outs and lose more hope in us! :)
I know that arguing semantics and personal beliefs is senseless. I
just want to uncover truth. I don’t think it’s senseless at all. I think it’s great to
learn. What I do think is senseless, if you’re tempted to
do this, is dismiss another Christian’s view as false/bad/evil/whatever just
because you don’t hold the same view. Like you, I want to “uncover
truth.” :) Simultaneously, I
personally certainly believe that there are a whole gambit of things about
which Christians can disagree and still not accuse the others of not
believing in the Bible or any other such thing. I accepted Jesus at a young age and grew up in a family where
the Bible represented the absolute truth. Aside from God there is no
truth. Truth becomes irrelevant and becomes the possession of the
strongest or last man standing without God making the rules. Cool. I concur. At no time is anything we’ve discussed
about “Truth” or “God making the rules.” That, again, is my chief
concern for you. It seems to me that you have equated “how to
interpret the Bible” with “whether or not Truth exists, or whether or not
a person trusts in the Bible.” I just don’t share that view.
Jesus is Truth. My interpretation of the Bible is not.
Thanks for letting me dive into apologetics with you even if I am
in over my head. You will have to swim for the both of us for a while.
In Him,
Friend
I knew I’d take too long to type this!! :) Thanks brother!
David
