Serious & Mature Questions About The Bible?

Question

For Mature Spiritual/Intellectual Thinkers. My question is about inerrancy. When a bible fundamentalist claims the bible is 100% inerrant doesn't that:

1. Immediately shut down the necessity of objective study? After all, if it is 100% perfect what is the point of textual criticism, source criticism.

2. Gloss over the the values of the writers of the Bible, who DID have inhumane or even unscientifc views on MANY things (e.g.Leviticus 11:6 incorrectly states that rabbits chew their cud). and were more interested in conveying and persuading spiritual ideas more than accurate history or science.

3. Ignore many of the failed prophesies in the bible. One glaring example is in Ezekiel 29:10-14 where it said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it in 29:19-20. NEITHER HAPPENED!

Last of all, If the bible is 100% accurate in all its facts, history, language, science etc. Why is faith STILL needed to believe it is true?

Just in case any over sensitive or overly defensive Christian jumps the gun on this, let me just say I am not BASHING the bible.

I believe it is an important book and it does convey many universal spiritual truths.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is this NEED some have for it to be 100% inerrant, which it clearly isn't. So its more about the APPROACH to the book rather than the book itself.

Answer 1

FYI


SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

There's a reason we are to study to show ourselves approved. Most would read this verse and discard the rest as if this one thing would invalidate the entire teachings contained within it. But really, those are the ones God has rejected anyway, so, so be it.

Answer 2

1. No. The claim that "the Bible is 100% inerrant" is an opinion, not a fact. That claim cannot be proven. An argument can be made, and evidence can be presented, but it doesn't objectively "prove" the claim is true. So, study is necessary.

2. When we read the Bible, we do need to take into account what the words meant to the people they were originally spoken to. And, yes, the Bible deals primarily with spiritual matters, the condition of man's heart, and man's s place in nature. The Bible does include a human history of God's creation, but that history doesn't suppose to negate our understanding of the universe we obtain from scientific inquiry.

I do not believe that the purpose, the primary meaning, of Leviticus 11:6 is to scientifically classify rabbits (Lagomorphs) as ruminants or rodents.

Granted, the dietary restrictions of the kashrut are numerous and complex, and it does not make sense to me why some foods are marked as clean and some as unclean. (What's unclean about mushrooms?) What is more important is the purpose the dietary prohibitions. (Is it a call to obedience and self-discipline?)

3. It cannot be reasonably "known" that the prophecy of Ezekiel 29:10-14 was never fulfilled. My knowledge of the history of ancient Egypt is extremely limited, and certainly incomplete. I cannot prove, to any satisfying degree of certainty, whether this prophecy was actually fulfilled or not.

Answer 3

Until the Bible was translated out of Latin or Greek into a language that the common people could read (research the Wycliff bible, or the Wessex translations, for instance) there was *no* source or textual criticism of the Bible. Once that happened, and the catholic church stopped killing people for doing it (i'm not kidding) then scholars began realizing that the translations held sacred for centuries were actually flawed, or that the source material these translations were made from differed. Research John Mills and his 20,000+ variations.

The obvious fact, however, is that inconsistencies and variations exist between source material and different translations of the biblical documents. Ignore it, deny it, or try to reason with it, but the fact remains.

While I advocate "newspaper plain text" reading (it should be able to be clearly comprehended by a 6th grader), the other obvious fact is that when read this way the Bible is confusing, inaccurate, and often erroneous. This should be expected of a collection of documents written over thousands of years by dozens of different authors all with different lifestyles, cultures, worldviews, and philosophies. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist will ignore this fact as well, view the Bible as a complete and continuous collection written by a single author (excuse me, inspired by God), and claim "inerrancy", which doesn't mean "100% accurate" .... it only means "100% accurate after adequate interpretation".

All this aside, I don't see the reasoning behind arguing the collection of documents the modern-day christian calls "The Bible" as being true or "inerrant". They are what they are - the beliefs, histories, and cultural practices written down by different people at different times. Sometimes they don't agree with each other, but that's because they are *different people*!

Faith is not required by the fundamentalist to believe whether the Bible is "true" or not, but to *not* believe that anything else could possibly be true. And that, my friends, is sometimes the most tragic thing of all.

----edit
Mdjgirl7, I applaud your scholarship. Wherever you got that from is certainly a valuable resource. The problem is that 99% of the people I know can't read the original hebrew or greek. I imagine more than 95% of all christians in the last 1200 years can't or couldn't either. Perhaps the original works were inspired by God - but their translations weren't.

Atomzer0, you aren't quite correct. The biblical canon (and the books that were left out) are snapshots in time of different writers' viewpoints on their cultures, their traditions, their histories, and their God(s). "Science" is our collective, progressive understanding of our material world - nothing to do with history or traditions. Just like the Bible didn't give us plans on how to build lightbulbs or make vaccines, "Science" won't give us set-in-stone rules on how to live amongst each other, or how to believe in the immaterial. Two different spheres. Of course, the two might converge someday, no? Until then, let's keep the church and state separate...

Let's Debate, you sum up exactly the point I was trying to make earlier... "it's not wrong, you're just looking at wrong" Any halfway decent statistician knows you can take any set of data and make it say what you want it to. Look at the number of denominations that comprise the spectrum of christianity. Need I say more? .... It's okay to admit the Bible has errors, inaccuracies, and problems. It's human, just like us. Recognize that, and maybe that's where real spiritual growth begins. The truth, I mean. =)

Answer 4

You need to dig into the Bible a lot more than what you're doing now. All of your supposed contradictions and unfulfilled prophesies you talk about are misconceptions. You cannot claim to know for a fact that you are perceiving everything in the Bible 100% correctly, that would be unreasonable. I've probably had over 100 misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Bible, all to be turned down after a little further study. Seriously, take the time to dig further into your misunderstood claims. The Bible IS inerrent, however, your perception is not, and neither would mine be if not for studying. One of the reasons I come on here, is to look at atheists claims. These claims help me look into certain misunderstandings of the Bible that I'm not familiar with. Atheists help strengthen my faith because they continue to be proven wrong upon further study. The Bible is perfect, but we must understand that we are not. Check this out when you have time: www.godsaidmansaid.com

Answer 5

1. I agree if the bible is 100% accurate then there is no point in questioning or discussing points of scripture.

2. I also agree, the values of people 2,000 plus years ago were much different then they are today. Slavery was a common practice, the sick and ailing were shunned from society, women were treated as property and taught to obey their husbands, and all sicknesses and misfortunes were chalked up to angering God. Everything was determined by the divine.

3. Prophesies are accurate according to interpretation. Just like today people feel that 9/11 was predetermined in the bible and they can take one obscure scripture that really is very vague and hold that up as proof of the prophecy.

Faith is needed for people to feel secure in the face of facts that are contrary to their written scripture.

The bible was a work of history and spirituality. It told the story of the Israelites and the Ministry of Jesus, whom some believe to be the Jewish Messiah. However fundamentalists do not keep in mind that the bible was written over hundreds of years and that some books were left out because they did not conform to what the religious leaders of the time were trying to convey. Does that make their message flawed? I believe it does.

What went into the bible and what was kept out was decided by men, not God. Therefore the message is as flawed as mankind is. If you look around and watch our actions, our accuracy about many things must be questioned.

I am not a Christian, but I do read the bible as a source of wisdom and spirituality. I believe that Jesus is one of many Gods, but a new one at that. I believe that there are many valuable lessons in the Bible, but I do not take every word as divinely inspired. I match what I read in in according to my own belief system.

Answer 6

1. I believe the Bible to be the word of God only as far as it is translated correctly. If it is correct it is God's word and God doesn't really need criticism.

2. Whether or not rabbits chew cud or bats are a kind of bird is completely irrelevant to the purpose and message of the Bible. The Bible isn't a science book. Science is man's interpretation of the universe according to man's understanding of the universe. The Bible is a religious book. Religion is man's interpretation of the universe according to God's understanding of the universe. People who put more faith in science than they do in religion don't understand the Bible.

3. Biblical prophecies are interpreted differently by different people. Some things are literal, some are symbolic, some happen quickly and some take thousands of years. Some are missed because they don't happen on the scale expected.

4. If you don't believe the Bible to be true, then it's nothing more than an interesting story. Religious faith is about believing in God and believing God.

Answer 7

It is good to put the Bible to the test.
Paul commended the christians in Beroea for doing so.
Acts 17:11.
However, it should be a given that God can produce a book that is accurate.
Even the cud-chewing rabbit:
François Bourlière in The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, page 41, says:
“The habit of passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in rabbits and hares."
Why is faith still needed?
Faith is built on knowledge ....accurate knowledge.
Such knowledge is to be found in the Bible.

Answer 8

#3 At Ezekiel 29:1-16 a desolation of Egypt is foretold, due to last 40 years. This may have come after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt. While some commentaries refer to the reign of Amasis (Ahmose) II, the successor of Hophra, as exceedingly prosperous during more than 40 years, they do so primarily on the testimony of Herodotus, who visited Egypt over a hundred years later. But as the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 8, p. 62) comments on Herodotus’ history of this period (the “Saitic Period”): “His statements prove not entirely reliable when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence.” The Bible Commentary by F. C. Cook, after noting that Herodotus even fails to mention Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt, says: “It is notorious that Herodotus, while he faithfully recorded all that he heard and saw in Egypt, was indebted for his information on past history to the Egyptian priests, whose tales he adopted with blind credulity. . . . The whole story [by Herodotus] of Apries [Hophra] and Amasis is mixed with so much that is inconsistent and legendary that we may very well hesitate to adopt it as authentic history. It is by no means strange that the priests should endeavour to disguise the national dishonour of having been subjected to a foreign yoke.” Hence, while secular history provides no clear evidence of the prophecy’s fulfillment, we may be confident of the accuracy of the Bible record.
To accept secular history as to always being accurate where men are concerned is naive.
On a biblical point the writings and prophesies of the scriptures are accurate because all scripture is inspired. 2 Tim 3:16. In most cases where there is enough secular history available it supports biblical findings.

Answer 9

Inerrancy is a great comfort for believers, but it doesn't do much for nonbelievers. Criticism is good in that it allows people who NEED the message of the Bible to actually look at it and make an informed decision about their future. I am not worried about the honest researcher. The people I have a problem with are the ones who randomly choose parts of the Bible they claim is 'impossible' and so throw it out without a hearing.

Dumb.

Answer 10

That is idolatry. You are assigning perfection and adoration to something that was created by mankind. Sure they may have been inspired to write about God but keep in mind that is from the point of view of the writer.

That is a form of control. The pastor says such and such, the bible in errant, by proxy the pastor is now inerrant... See where I'm going?

So now the doctrines are cemented into the minds of the believer through inerrancy doctrine. To question that is heresy.

It closes the bible to intrepretation because someone might come up with an idea that clashes with their perception of inerrancy.

That along with fear is a control tactic.

-- apparently someone who believes in biblical inerrancy gave me a thumbs down. --

Answer 11

It's a shame that so many respondents are missing the point of Your question. The worst thing anyone can do is engage in sweeping absolutism, whether fundie or bonger.

By demonizing faith as a "disease," bonger makes it sound like atheists really are out to get us all and annihilate everyone who fails to "convert" to his belief in bitterness and despair. People like bonger scare me. Fundies just annoy me. So who is more dangerous THIS time?

I admire Your final analysis. It's about the approach. This book has been held in high regard for a long, long time. It is absurd to dismiss it entirely because it contains some inaccuracies.

edit --
Way to go Mdjgirl! THANKS!