Also, yes. The Bible is exclusive in its infallible nature. It cannot be mistaken about anything; all recorded history and spiritual veracities in Scripture bear full truth; it is incapable of error of any sort. Skeptics will scour the Word seeking any and all perceived inaccuracies.
One such indictment comes from doubters who take exception to the biblical accounts of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. The record of the progression of the reigning kings does not seem to match up when comparing the accounts as written in the books of 1 and 2 Kings.
An exhaustive study, however, carried out by Dr. As scholars advanced the historical study of ancient Assyria and Babylon, they have been able to discern the accurate timetable of their kings. In one account, the biblical timeline did not match up with their findings. What Dr. Thiele discovered was a difference in calendars used by Judah vs. Israel, which made the discrepancy disappear. In every case, the Bible is proven true. Every case. Disparagers will make the accusation that human men wrote the Bible, and it is liable to their fallible nature.
Yes, men are fallible, but as it was originally written by the inspired authors in its languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible is indisputable in its infallibility just as it is with its inerrancy. God preserved His intended message to us as the Bible has passed through the ages. It has exact uniformity even though it was written by forty men from three different continents over years. Men, however, are fallible and liable to make mistakes. Therefore, some people object to the copying process of the Bible.
This is a false comparison to how the Bible was copied through the years. Even one noted critic states the original message of the New Testament can be known using the manuscripts available to us today.
People also say the ancient myths led the writers, but 2 Peter explains—with the exactness only the Bible can provide—the men who wrote the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit. But this is a position we have consistently rejected. Let's illustrate with two examples from the biblical record.
All four gospels recount Jesus' last Passover meal with his disciples. Matthew and Luke agree with Mark that the Last Supper took place on Passover evening before his crucifixion and the preparation day was the day before. But why would John alone make this move? For John, therefore, making Jesus die about the same time animals were being slaughtered throughout Israel in preparation for the Passover meal, was symbolic gold, and rearranging events to highlight his motif was a justifiable move.
Something similar, but on a grander scale happens in the two books of Chronicles. Here are a few examples. According to 2 Samuel , God was angry with Israel and motivated David to take the census.
Not so, according to the Chronicler 2 Chronicles , who tied the inspiration to Satan. Therefore Yahweh killed him. The chronicler disagrees 1 Chronicles , countering with seven. This sort of thing populates the pages of the two Chronicles.
But the overriding achievement of the chronicler is the deodorization of King David. In 1 Chronicles, David does no wrong. If David had faults — e. Abigail and Bathsheba — you would not find them in Chronicles. The narrator had access to the basic data about David, but he selected and discarded at will, to serve his purpose. The two Chronicles are probably the best refutation of biblical infallibility. It is unwise to equate Scripture with God. The different depictions of God in scripture do not all add up to a full picture of God.
The simple reason is that the vessels conveying these images and impressions are flawed. At times some of the things these writers make God say or do are immoral. It is difficult to square the God Jesus reveals to us with the one that demands that Sabbath breakers should be stoned to death. Literary critics are familiar with this dynamic. For example, Titus says God cannot lie. Examples could be multiplied. The testimony of Scripture is clear. God used fallible men to receive and record His infallible Word so that it would reach us, correct and without error.
Sounds difficult? This fascinating lecture points out the details which show that the New Testament Gospels must have been based on eyewitness accounts. What have you been thinking about? The writers of the Chicago Statement and most informed inerrantists are aware that there are many places where the plain meaning of the biblical text is inconsistent with what we know from modern science, archaeology, or history.
They understand that there are inconsistencies within differing accounts of the same story. They acknowledge that there are some teachings in scripture that are no longer binding today, and they typically note that these teachings were shaped by the culture or times in which the scripture was written.
Supporters of inerrancy go to remarkable lengths to smooth over these inconsistencies and apparent errors. But would we not expect that God, who is said to have provided the grace of infallibility in the writing of the original manuscripts, would also ensure that they were infallibly passed on to us? This idea of the inerrant original manuscripts allows the inerrantist to speculate that any error that cannot otherwise be harmonized or explained did not exist in the original manuscript of the document.
The Chicago Statement goes on to affirm verbal, plenary inspiration. Yet supporters of inerrancy say that God did not dictate every word. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The consequences include subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, persecution of those who deny inerrancy. Scholars have been ostracized from theological societies, pastors have lost their pastorates, seminary and college professors have lost their positions, and authors have been blackballed, all for not affirming inerrancy.
Many evangelical scholars and pastors who have serious reservations about the doctrine seem to have professed inerrancy with their fingers crossed behind their backs just to keep their jobs or to continue publishing. They found ways to think about the doctrine so they could affirm it. If you can make the definition broad enough and add enough caveats, anyone can accept it. Genesis 1 states that planet Earth, with its atmosphere, water, dry land, and vegetation, was created on the first three days of creation.
Some conservatives see these days as epochs; others see them as twenty-four-hour days. Genesis then tells us that on day four, God created the sun and the moon. The gravitational pull of a sun plays a key role in the creation of planets. Day and night result from the rotation of the earth on its axis: as one part of the planet faces the sun, then rotates away from it, it experiences day and night.
Modern science tells us that the sun played a critical role in the formation of our atmosphere. And even an elementary school child knows that the sun is essential for plant growth. Yet Genesis says that the planet was formed without the gravitational field of the sun, and it experienced day and night without the sun. It developed an atmosphere without the sun.
And plants sprang up and grew without a sun. It is possible that the biblical author was recounting the order of Creation as understood by the prevailing scientific views of the time. Or perhaps, as some have suggested, the author was trying to make a theological or liturgical statement the most important seventh day is the Sabbath , not a scientific one, as the creation story was retold.
What troubles me is the fact that some who hold to inerrancy insist that modern scientific theories must conform to the scientific views held by people of the ancient Near East who lived 2, years ago.
0コメント