Things I Think…
1. We had a big dust up on here the other day about inerrancy.
Now, for me, having studied the matter more than a little bit, it is intellectually impossible for me to embrace the doctrine.
That doesn’t diminish the authority of the Scriptures or the preeminent place they hold in matters of faith and practice.
What we saw in that scuffle was that some folks can’t believe in Jesus unless they can believe the book about Him is perfect.
That’s a problem.
2. I believe in Jesus first and foremost because I have had a personal encounter with Him and I know the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Without that relationship… without the indwelling of the Spirit, the Bible becomes just another ancient book of passing interest.
Through the Holy Spirit, it becomes a revelation of God…a testimony of how and why He has interacted with humans through history.
3. I’ve gone from being irritated to amused at negative reactions to my views…no matter what evidence or data that I present on the subject, evangelicals are certain that I don’t believe in inerrancy because I want to enjoy some particular sin in my personal life… or, I want to endorse same sex marriage or the pro choice position. Sorry…it’s none of the above…I simply respect the work of other disciplines such as archeology, literary criticism, and history…none of my theological beliefs have changed as a result…
4. The question I have is this…if you really believe the Bible is inerrant, then why don’t you believe it when it tells you how to live and how to think?
5. Personal experience has been greatly devalued in this age of doctrinal purity and mental assent to propositions…I submit that without a personal experience of Christ, you cannot have a living faith…
6. When you devalue personal experience, you can easily demonize emotions…remove experience and emotions and you lose humanity and a God who was fully human and fully divine…
7. I’m not on a mission to debunk inerrancy…I am on one that would allow those of us who don’t hold to it the same respect as faithful believers in Jesus…
8. I pretty much despise labels…labels don’t allow for nuance or understanding. Having said that we need a new label…a new category for people who are traditional evangelicals, but who haven’t sold out to partisan politics.
9. We tend to bang on the broad category of “evangelicals” as we do all we can to resist the deformation of the faith that is Christian nationalism. When we do so, we unintentionally indict a group of people who may well agree with what we’re saying, but don’t appreciate being scorned as a group.
Traditionally, evangelicals were simply Christians who were non-liturgical and had a high view of Scripture as their only authority for doctrine and practice and with a high view of missions, as personal salvation was of paramount concern.
They were ,and are, a valuable and beloved branch of Gods family tree.
Unfortunately, faithful evangelicals are now lumped in with those who have imbibed the heresy of nationalism and political idolatry.
I feel the weight of this…I don’t want to harm or slander faithful brothers and sisters, but I have to speak against those who have hijacked the good name of the movement.
Any ideas?
10. When you view all of life through a political lens, you miss things you might want to see…
For reasons I still am unsure of, I’ve become a fan of NASCAR.
NASCAR is broadcasting five races this year on Prime Video…and oh, how angry some people are.
Amazon is WOKE they screamed all week.
They would not defile their tender, patriotic eyes watching cars turn left for 600 miles on a “woke” platform.
I have no such compunctions.
In reality, the race program was a five hour long tribute to those we honor on Memorial Day…each car carried the name of a fallen soldier…the military was honored and uplifted and America was celebrated for our stated values.
The race began, as always, with a prayer…not a generic prayer, but a “in Jesus name” prayer.
The whole thing was a celebration of traditional America.
Some of you missed something that would have lifted your spirits…because you miss a lot when you only see through one lens…
Inerrancy- after also studying the subject over many years, I cannot hold to it for many reasons. However, the subjects of God’s love, the supremacy of Christ, and the redemption of man don’t have to hinge on inerrancy for me they hang on the personal relationship developed over years with Christ. The prevalent push toward nationalism within the evangelical church today is simply cruelty practiced by white-washed, self-righteous people. I could say more but the subject has no end in these times.
“However, the subjects of God’s love, the supremacy of Christ, and the redemption of man don’t have to hinge on inerrancy for me they hang on the personal relationship developed over years with Christ. ”
Well said…absolutely true.
Inerrancy – I was taught early on that the Bible is certainly more than just a book. That being said, it is not less than a book; meaning that we can apply our intelligence and scholarly disciplines to the interpretation of what its pages contain. Otherwise, the Bible becomes a totem…
Duane,
Strangely enough, it becomes a powerless totem in the process…fervently defended and ignored at the same time…
1. “What we saw in that scuffle was that some folks can’t believe in Jesus unless they can believe the book about Him is perfect.” I did not see that expressed by anyone.
3. “Sorry…it’s none of the above…I simply respect the work of other disciplines such as archeology, literary criticism, and history…none of my theological beliefs have changed as a result…” It’s more than respect. You evidently believe in the archeological conclusions, literary criticism conclusions, and historical conclusions made by fallible human beings, none of who were eye witnesses of the events they speak on, more than you believe what the Bible says. Either way you believe in something that cannot be proven through empirical investigation. The methodology that archeologists, higher critical “scholars” and historians is also subject to bias. Even Wright would admit that historians bring their own presuppositions a
and biases to their interpretations of historical data.
5. “I submit that without a personal experience of Christ, you cannot have a living faith…” That’s exactly what Christians experience when they receive absolution and participate in faith in the Lord’s Supper. The great thing about worshipping Christ’s way is that you have a promise attached to your devotion. You don’t have to invent or wonder if what you are doing is pleasing to God; you know with certainty what pleases him and what he promises to do for you.
Again, none of us here would know anything at all about Jesus, would know what kind of God/Man he is, what he has done for mankind, what God requires of us, what he promises to his people, etc., without the Bible. And all of this is no restricted to the four Gospels. The entire Bible is relevant to our understanding of all these things just mentioned.
Jean,
Across academic disciplines the inerrancy (perfection) of the biblical text is completely untenable.
It is the argument of the simpleton to believe that all of this can be attributed to bias.
We acknowledge the veracity of this disciplines when applying them to other things in life…to declare that the Bible is outside examination is fearful ignorance.
I do not necessarily accept “conclusions”…science is always in process, always learning, always growing.
To the degree that I’m able, I try to do the same.
Acknowledging that there may be questions about some parts of the biblical text takes nothing away from the authority of the text, or it’s ability to change lives through the Spirit and the Word.
Good job inserting a Lutheran commercial into #5…that’s not what was talking about, but if it works for you…
Yes, the entire Bible as a narrative of Gods redemption is relevant…but some parts may be sketchy…
My personal hostility toward “experts” and The Science holds me at a bias towards scriptural inerrancy because I want it to be true. Additionally, I see the last five years and the lost credibility of the expert class (government, medicine, education, chiefly) as deepening my desire for “something to be true”, and I believe God and His desire to make sure we can know Him means that His Word has been miraculously and accurately conveyed even to this far off generation.
I simply deeply want it to be true and that is my bias.
RM,
The Bible is a grand and wondrous book…it contains God’s word and whatever we need to know about God and the kingdom is contained there in.
Because God used humans to communicate His word, there are some minor glitches that don’t change any major doctrine, but do defeat the impossible standard of inerrancy.
I’m big on experts and science…as I’m sitting in a house made by professionals and writing on a computer that is a miracle to me before getting in a car designed by engineers.
I also am kept alive by medication…
Experts make mistakes…but I’m not throwing out the value of expertise.
“Good job inserting a Lutheran commercial into #5…that’s not what was talking about, but if it works for you…”
Not just Lutheran, add Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy; i.e., the majority of Christians worldwide.
Jean,
I’m an Anglican…I know something about the sacraments…and that is a very Lutheran description…
RM,
Thank you for your courage.
The argument will be settled forever when we uncover the autographs but until then I believe that there’s enough evidence to trust what it says by faith.
Once I was able to actually study “original” languages, especially the Hebrew, I learned the term “inerrancy” is a fools quest and frankly not required for faith in God.
Also the idea of “discovering” the autographs is a kin to searching for the Ark of the Covenant and Noah’s ark. It just isn’t in the cards.
Do they believe the Bible is True? You bet! Is creation 5000+ years old? It doesn’t matter to me and doesn’t change the truth of creation told in Genesis.
Did Jesus defeat “death?” Yes! But is heaven and life after death what is taught in church? Probably not. What counts is always today!
I had to get a haircut…was starting to look like a mini-Dread…
“I simply deeply want it to be true and that is my bias.”
That is completely legit…I don’t feel any need to argue the point.
I think God did get to us what we needed to know…despite scribes who had a little too much wine or misread a scroll here and there…
Jean,
RM is a courageous man indeed…but not because he was in any danger of conflict here.
You have established that you cannot actually engage in a real discussion of the evidence…you have yet to deal with a single word that has been written with anything other than “shut off your brain and believe”…I do not think God wants us to do that…
How does one deal with “despite scribes who had a little too much wine or misread a scroll here and there…”?
I read everything on the topic and respond to what is written. I’ve been called or associated with “simpleton”, “fearful ignorance,” and now accused of telling someone to “shut off your brain and believe.” Notice I do not respond in kind.
What evidence have you presented that I have not engaged?
Jean,
If the Bible is inerrant there can be no contradictions in the Scripture, nor any errors.
So, explain if you will…
Who killed Goliath? Two different accounts are given.
There are two different creation accounts in Gen 1-2.
Which is the correct one?
“According to Genesis 1, plants were created on the third day; only later, on the sixth day, were humans created. But not according to Genesis 2. There we are told that “the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground” before there were any plants or herbs on the earth (2:4, 7).
According to Genesis 1, all the animals, of all kinds, were created before humans, on the fifth and sixth days. But according to Genesis 2, “man” was created first (2:7), and then the animals—who were made in order to provide companionship for the man (2:19). Note: it was only after man was made that “the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air.” None of the animals existed, according to this account in chapter 2, before the man was made.
According to Genesis 1, humans, both male and female, were created at the same time, as the pinnacle of all creation (1:26–27). But in Genesis 2 the LORD God first creates “man” (adam); he then creates all the animals in order to provide a companion for “man.” And when none of them is deemed suitable, then and only then does the LORD God make a woman out of a rib that he has taken from the man.”
Those are irreconcilable…
Let’s stay in Genesis…
“According to Genesis 6:19, God told Noah to take two animals “of every kind” with him into the ark; but according to Genesis 7:2, God told him to take seven pairs of all “clean animals” and two of every other kind of animal. Well, which is it? ”
I used Ehrmanns examples…because cut and paste is easier at my age.
Now, these examples don’t bother me at all…because I understand that the writer is using Hebrew prose-poetry to explain creation and the God who creates…not offer a literal historical account of the beginnings of the universe.
Who Killed Goliath? David. The later account refers to Elhanan who killed the brother of Goliath (I can provide the citations, but at least it used to be that more than one citation would result a post being put into moderation).
Regarding the plants, Genesis 2 is referring specifically to cultivated plants for human consumption cultivated on dusty land where agriculture is possible. From this soil Adam was formed. There was prior to that already vegetation in open uncultivated plain or field, the wilderness suitable for animal grazing.
The grammar of Gen 2 says “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.” It does not say God created animals after man. Only that after man God brought the animals to Adam to be named.
Gen 1 says “male and female he created them.” This does not preclude the sequential creation of man, then woman.
Regarding the animals on the ark, it’s both. A pair of everything and 7 pairs of the clean animals.
I do agree that Gen 1 and 2 are 2 creation stories told from two different perspectives. The question for me is not “Did the author err in one or more points,” but are we properly interpreting the text according to the genre of the literature. Properly interpreted we should not expect to find errors IMO.
“As Goliath moved closer to attack, David quickly ran out to meet him. Reaching into his shepherd’s bag and taking out a stone, he hurled it with his sling and hit the Philistine in the forehead. The stone sank in, and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground.”
(1 Samuel 17:48-49
2Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
There is clearly a contradiction here.
The contradiction is resolved by a cross reference
“In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”
(1 Chronicles 20:5 NIV)
Therefore…2 Samuel 21:19 is an error in the text.
I won’t even comment on your explanations of Genesis…but if that satisfies you, go for it.
Most will see the obvious problems…
“Properly interpreted we should not expect to find errors IMO.”
There’s the problem, how does one “properly interpret” the scriptures?
“Therefore…2 Samuel 21:19 is an error in the text.” In the manuscripts we have.
TH, Very good question. My tradition follows the Chicago Statement:
“We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.”
Among the theologians who signed on to the Statement are: J I Packer; Sproul; Montgomery; Horton and about 200 others, representing a wide swath of Western Protestant Christianity.
Jean
“Western Protestant Christianity.”
Admittedly the statement is based upon this. What if it were another schism or entire religion are interpreting equally well in respect to grammar and their understanding of the history? The would say a similar thing as you.
My point comes back to crowds, cultures and personal experiences always tint what is seen in the text. We can’t even understand what was actually in the mind(s) of the original authors when the text was written.
How many authors contributed to the NT Book of ‘John’ or the OT ‘Daniel’? There are clearly shifts and mixes of grammar and possibly original language in both. No I will not expand on this, because again it depends on who one believes has the best/most scholarly”answer.
While I am in no way Catholic I believe they nailed it with this statement,
““Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” (CCC 107, quoting the Vatican II document Dei Verbum 11).”
Particularly this statement, ” …we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation…”
Does this mean the flood is a fact? Not necessarily, but it does say the events, culture, lifestyles and evil which led up to judgement and the consequences are true.
Now it is up to us to find and apply those truths.
BTW I do believe there is evidence of some sort of universal world wide flood. Have they found Noah’s Ark? To me the truth in the story isn’t affected by the quest to know if these things are real or not.
TH,
“My point comes back to crowds, cultures and personal experiences always tint what is seen in the text. We can’t even understand what was actually in the mind(s) of the original authors when the text was written.”
Great insight? Bible interpreters sometimes call this attempting to go “behind the text” for the “real” or “deeper” meaning. The grammatico-historical method of exegesis confines itself to the text that we have. Trying to get into the head of the author probably would result in a projection of what I think or would have thought if in their context, which is a fools errand. Also, we must apply a healthy dose of humility to such an important task.
“Particularly this statement, ‘ …we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation…’ ”
I think the nuance the RCC statement is making is that the Bible should not be used as a science textbook because that is not its purpose, which is for our salvation. Geology or astronomy instruction is not its purpose. At the same time, if the Bible teaches that Adam was the first man, he brought sin into the world, and Jesus is the second Adam in whom all humanity is born anew, then that is not a science claim but a truth claim that I would hope the RCC statement does not challenge.
If the Bible mentions something that was apparently prevalent amongst the ancient Israelites, such as the Sun revolving around a stationary Earth, I don’t consider that an error in the Bible; it is in my view, not a teaching to believe but an accommodation to their common understanding.
Correction to above comment: I meant “Great insight!” not “Great insight?” My apology.
TH,
You and I are on much the same page…
“If the Bible mentions something that was apparently prevalent amongst the ancient Israelites, such as the Sun revolving around a stationary Earth, I don’t consider that an error in the Bible; it is in my view, not a teaching to believe but an accommodation to their common understanding”
If the Bible is inerrant, then what it teaches in all things must be perfect.
If this is simply an accommodation to their thinking (it may well be) then what other accommodations have been made?
Perhaps accommodations were made to all manner of cultural things at the time of writing…which I believe, but which also throws a wrench into a whole lot of dogma…
Jean
I always like to point out that Adam and Eve were the first “cavemen.” Why? Because cavemen are always depicted as wearing animal skins for clothing and God made them such to wear. 😉
Maybe you get it, maybe not.
Also, did you ever wonder why Adam named his wife “Eve” after the fall and not before?
Of course I’m sure she occasionally reminded Adam he was literally a “dirt man.” ;-D
One could argue that the whole creation narrative was an accommodation to their common understanding. This was to explain to Bronze age peoples the complex set of events in which life arose on Earth and put in a more poetic narrative. Interestingly the overall sequence in Genesis and what science tells us match quite well. First the animals arose, then humans arose for example.
I suppose the YEC proponents also argue that to be an inerrantist one has to agree to YEC.
As for the worldwide flood, there is actually little evidence of it. But you mean worldwide being confined to the Ancient Near East (ANE), then sure. The question is how rapid was the flooding as the jury is still out on this contender:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
R’as al Ghul,
I think it’s important to note that there are two creation narratives…probably written by two different authors at two different times with two different understandings.
Having said all that…I find it glorious in many ways…
This is why I hold to inerrancy loosely.
My best understanding of God and interpretation of Scripture leads me to believe that in one fashion or another, the Scriptures as written in their original form are inerrant, while admitting that nowhere in Scripture is the word or concept of “inerrancy” explicitly taught.
To hold to inerrancy, one must assume that the error of misidentifying Goliath for his brother was made by later scribes copying the text, and not from the original author. While certainly plausible, in reality we will never be able to prove this or know this with certainty, outside of a miraculous discovery of the original manuscript.
To hold to inerrancy and make sense of the seemingly different or conflicting versions of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, one must settle on an interpretation that can explain the different descriptions in a way that clears up any possible discrepancies or errors in the text. Again, while such interpretations are certainly plausible and can even be faithful to honest biblical hermeneutics, we still have no way to prove these interpretations to be foolproof, and an element of faith must come into play.
The same types of things come into play over and over with many instances of Scripture.
My main focus and basis of faith is Jesus, and beyond that, it is with the primary and clear tenets of the faith as given in Scripture and mainly articulated in the historic creeds. While I still hold faith that the inerrancy of Scripture is true in one form or fashion that would include the proper interpretation and understanding of all of its parts, something none of us will ever achieve, at least not this side of heaven, to me it is not something I feel the imperative need to try to convince others of. What is of utmost importance is if one has faith in Jesus or not, and not whether or not they have faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, which can get into all kinds of weeds describing and defining exactly what “inerrancy” of the Scriptures means. The demons, themselves, may very well have a proper understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture, but that’s not helping them out at all.
Michael,
I agree there are 2 different narratives (I think there is a literatary structure in other parts of the Bible that use the same device (Chiasmus/Chiasm).
Interestingly I found this quote by J.I. Packer you might like:
“I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I maintain it in print, but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other.”
– Packer, J.I., The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem (Oxford: Oxford-Latimer House, 1978), 5.
Here is a money quote by Hodge and Warfield:
“There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed…It is this accuracy, and this alone, as distinct from exactness, which the church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of Scripture without exception.”
The problem is that a large number inerrantists (and their proponents) confuse these.
““Go back to Pharaoh,” the LORD commanded Moses. “Tell him, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so they can worship me. If you continue to hold them and refuse to let them go, the hand of the LORD will strike all your livestock—your horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, sheep, and goats—with a deadly plague. But the LORD will again make a distinction between the livestock of the Israelites and that of the Egyptians. Not a single one of Israel’s animals will die! The LORD has already set the time for the plague to begin. He has declared that he will strike the land tomorrow.’”
And the LORD did just as he had said. The next morning all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but the Israelites didn’t lose a single animal.”
(Exodus 9:1-6 NLT-SE)
“So tomorrow at this time I will send a hailstorm more devastating than any in all the history of Egypt. Quick! Order your livestock and servants to come in from the fields to find shelter. Any person or animal left outside will die when the hail falls.’”
Some of Pharaoh’s officials were afraid because of what the LORD had said. They quickly brought their servants and livestock in from the fields. But those who paid no attention to the word of the LORD left theirs out in the open.
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Lift your hand toward the sky so hail may fall on the people, the livestock, and all the plants throughout the land of Egypt.””
(Exodus 9:18-22 NLT-SE)
In the first plague noted, all the livestock are killed. “All”
In the second plague noted…all of a sudden there is livestock again to be killed.
How can this be?
Simple…the accounts were kibbled together and edited over the centuries…
“I suppose the YEC proponents also argue that to be an inerrantist one has to agree to YEC.”
No where in the Bible is the age of the earth taught.
Just like there is an excess called scientism, there also is an excesses called biblicism and literalism.
Perhaps the following from Article VIII of the Chicago Statement will be helpful:
“We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. 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.”
R’as al Ghul,
Packer put me on the path I walk now…he wouldn’t necessarily endorse everything I write, but he taught me how to think.
He was the first to inform me how to read the creation accounts…they were prose-poetry telling us about the creator God, not historical narratives.
“It was to show us the Creator rather than the creation, and to teach us knowledge of God rather than physical science, that Genesis 1 and 2, along with such celebrations of creation as Psalm 104 and Job 38–41, were written.”
He also cautiously endorsed theistic evolution…
“Perhaps the following from Article VIII of the Chicago Statement will be helpful:”
More like amusing…inerrancy killed with a thousand paper cuts…
Such a massive waste of time and energy…there are obvious discrepancies and contradictions that show the Bible is errant …but none of them affect any doctrines of the church.
Demanding that people believe something they can clearly see is not true hinders the faith and cripples the progress of the Gospel…instead we should be saying with a clear voice and conscience that our sacred scriptures are reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative theologically.
The volcanic eruption of Santorini around 1600 BCE may have been the agent responsible for the plagues of Egypt. Other things such as droughts and other natural disaster are possibilities:
https://www.history.com/articles/10-plagues-egypt-causes
If that is the case, then I am reminded of the WCF 5.2.
The bible we have available to us is errant, and everyone agrees to that. Inerrancy is hypothetical based on the theoretical perfection of the un-knowable original autographs. It is faith – belief in something we can’t see – and the object of this faith is not Jesus, but “the bible”. Interesting to me.
Also interesting is another loop Michael throws in earlier. He suggests some form of the Documentary Hypothesis: that the Mosaic works are actually a collection piece together from at least four different sources.
I think the Chicago Statement would allow this because Genesis is not an original autograph, and therefore, not necessarily inerrant in its current form. In this case, the original autographs would be those 4 or more original sources. Lets say there are just 4. Are the entirety of all 4 inerrant, or just the portion saved in our current version of Genesis?
R’as al Ghul,
Thank you for bringing up Dr. Packer.
It prompted me to listen for a bit to some lectures he gave on Genesis and it was good to hear the sound of his voice again.
I had also forgotten how annoyed he was about the term “inerrancy”, even though he wrote most of the Chicago Statement.
He didn’t think it was helpful at all…he simply wanted to say that the scriptures were trustworthy and should be obeyed…they were authoritative.
KevinH,
I missed your post…but I think you hold a perfectly reasonable position…and you live out your faith in honest ways.
Josh,
I think the evidence points to Jewish scribes editing and re-editing their history and narratives over the centuries.
Like most of the rest of the issues at hand,I don’t think that changes anything about the veracity of the text…I think it helps us understand some things that would be really difficult to reconcile any other way.
Rabbit trail, but terribly interesting to me – but keeping the example to the two creation accounts in Genesis: Do you think both are part of a larger text that we no-longer have access to?
In other words, they were copied and pasted into the document we now call Genesis.
Josh,
Hard to tell…when you look under the hood, they are very different.
Two different names of god and two different ways of thinking about God.
In chapter 1, God is transcendent…above it all.
In chapter 2, He is imminent…walking with and among His creation.
I actually love the differences because God is both transcendent and imminent… but the differences in the order of creation suggest that 2 was a later addition to the text…probably as the scribes understanding of God changed.
Josh,
The other thing we deal with is, (as you know), Genesis 1 is a tabernacle motif, probably a product of the priestly class in Israel .
I don’t have time to go much further on that, but I think the purposes of 1-2 are different and 2 was probably an addendum to 1 written much later.
I hold to tenets of The Apostle’s Creed as non-negotiable parameters of my faith.
My faith, such as it is, does not require an inerrant Bible.
Muff,
I concur…it’s interesting that the early creeds don’t talk about inerrancy…and some of the early fathers before Augustine noted the discrepancies without any concern…
Michael,
Yes, Packer was rather annoyed at the term, especially how he and his colleagues had developed the specific technical definition and characteristics that defined it. Only to have Fundangelicals abuse and misuse the term in the following years. The following seems to apply:
what is the brief case against currency of scripture??
jtk,
I’m assuming you meant the case against inerrancy.
I have outlined a number of reasons in the thread above.
Trying to be concise…if your definition of inerrancy is that every word of the text we call the Bible is perfect and God breathed, then you have some issues to address.
There are obvious contradictions and inaccuracies in the text, as I’ve noted above.
Our bible is trustworthy, reliable, and authoritative…but it is also the product of humans and god…and humans make mistakes.
jtk, there is what is likely an auto correct typo in your question. Do you mean “errancy” or “inerrancy?”
For what it’s worth, neither Luther nor Calvin could’ve signed on to the Chicago statement in good conscience.
Just sayin’…
… And as Michael pointed out, Augustine couldn’t have signed out either.