DaMan121

So if its not literally true, then what kinds of truth is it? Metaphorically true? In that sense Thomas the Tank Engine is inerrant.

Clouseau

One cannot state categorically that anything is infallible or inerrant. One can only say that a person regards a book or books as inerrant. There is no infallible authority to say that the NT is inerrant, or to define what the NT consists of, or even that there is an NT. But if Jesus and the NT apostles are taken as authoritative, the NT's record of Jesus and the apostles, which strongly validate and authorise the OT, necessitates accepting the Hebrew canon as inerrant also. That inerrancy is inclusive of all of its books and all parts of those books, which, from internal and external evidence is believed to be as close to the autographs as makes no practical difference. For devotional and credal purposes, the OT testimony that we now have presents no difficulties that threaten the Bible's theology or practical application. The advances made in linguistic research in the last decades have served only to confirm theological positions already adequately clear, or to enlighten wrt particular detail theretofore uncertain. Even before these recent advances, it was a commonplace among Christians that the detail of Scripture is inexhaustible- "even if you lived to be a thousand...". Modern scholarship has provided even more illuminations that have given and are giving a new 'lease of life' to exegetes and preachers.

There is absolutely no commentator who believes that all of the Bible is to be taken literally- yet there are those who, for their own, imv sinister, political reasons, insist on a literal early Genesis. Christianity's whole claim depends on acceptance of the 'sign of Jonah'- the miraculous raising of Jesus from the dead. From that acceptance flows recognition of many other things, including recognition of NT and also OT. An antichrist attempt to reverse the process, making Jesus' authority contingent upon recognition of the authority of Genesis 1, is an absurdity, that would make the foundation for Christianity one of sand.

James Brown

When I was a Bible-believing Christian, and for every Bible-believing Christian I knew, and grew up with, and went to school with, and dated, and attended church with, 'inerrant' and 'literally true' were synonyms.

It was only in college that I heard of and became acquainted with liberal Christians that thought the Bible was one big metaphor. I didn't understand them then, and I don't understand them now.

Mike PSS

I'm assuming this is your own opinion, or maybe an established criteria of whatever source your using.

I'm interpreting this statement as...
"The belief in a literal Genesis is anathema to the teachings of Jesus becuase it sets Jesus, and all his teachings, against a text that preceded him by centuries."

It seems you agree with me to a point. That there exist passages within the OT that cannot be taken literally. But apparently other OT statements ARE literal in nature (the fulfilled prophesies?).

Or am I totally misinterpreting this statement. I'm sure if I come back in the morning and read it I'll see it slightly different.

JGL53

You don't understand why anyone would interpret the entire biblical narrative as myth and metaphor? Why? That's exactly the way I interpret it. That has always been the esoteric interpretation of all religious myth. It is only the exoteric or literal minded "non-initiates into the mysteries" who have always, child-like, read it as factual history.

Most if not all of the archetypes and motifs in Genesis were present in religious mythos of various peoples predating the Hebrews by thousands of years. Some of the motifs go back 20 or 30 thousand years - or more - to pre-agricultural hunter/gather tribes.

(Doesn't anyone read mythologists like Joseph Campbell anymore?)

James Brown

I'm surprised some of the hard-core scholars haven't answered your questions yet. I can only answer as someone steeped in the Protestant King James Bible from birth. I grew up intimately familiar with the end-product of what we call The Bible, although I have little to no knowledge of the development of that product.

Most Christians that I know will tell you that what we have today in the OT is what Jesus and his disciples had to work with. Not only did Jesus quote from OT scriptures, he read from them during his trial, and the gospel authors also quoted from them. No, not every OT verse is duplicated in the NT--that would be silly. But enough of the OT is referenced for anyone to realize that the OT is a significant source text. They certainly didn't quote from the Baghavad Gita or any other ancient document.

What's more, Paul wrote that "all scripture is God-breathed," and many are content to accept that to mean all scripture, from Genesis to Revelations. Yes, there was no NT when Paul wrote that, but that's not what's important (to them.) I know Christians who would be baffled to learn that the epistles of Paul were written before the Gospels--why would they be if the Gospels are listed first in the NT?

For a Bible-believing Christian, the only prophecies not fulfilled are the ones that Jesus hasn't fulfilled yet. You'll find most of these in Daniel, since Christians interpret much of Daniel to refer to the 'end-times' when Jesus returns to earth, not as a meek sacrificial lamb, but as a mighty warrior to sweep away the Devil and his followers in blood and fire.

Some argue that many prophecies were 'two-fers,' meaning that they had two fulfillments. The perfect example is Isaiah's virgin prophecy in his book, when he told Ahaz, the king of Judah, not to worry about the enemies gathering to destroy his kingdom. "Behold," Isaiah said, "a virgin will conceive, give birth, and before the boy is very old, your enemies will be laid to waste."

Of course, most Christians focus on the virgin part and ascribe this to Jesus, because the Gospel of Matthew says so. I suppose they're so razzle-dazzled by the whole virgin birth aspect that they miss the other key elements of this prophecy, like the fact that King Ahaz was very worried about his life and his kingdom, and that his enemies will be destroyed "before the boy knows enough to choose right from wrong," neither of which applies to Jesus coming along hundreds of years later.

It would be like Billy Graham telling George W. Bush, "Don't worry about the enemies of the US, Mr. President. Someday, Captain Kirk will save the earth." Well, that might be fine and dandy for the far-future generations, but for here and now, that's cold comfort. So some Christians concede that a prophecy could have two fulfillments--an immediate one for the current listeners, and a future one for when Jesus came along.

Of course, there are prophecies, and then there are prophecies. To a Christian, the OT is chockablock with prophecies, each and every one of them pointing to a future Jesus. Josh McDowell numbers the OT prophecies at around 300. This Christian site calls it 324.

Jews, however, are much more modest. They list the number of Messianic prophecies at a mere eight, and also declare that no one has fulfilled them yet. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the Jews, seeing as how it's their prophecies we're talking about. Who am I to say different? I don't lecture Tolkien on elvish languages, I don't teach Stan Lee the finer points of radioactive spider bites, and I don't presume to argue with Jews about their own messiah.

To wonder if there are only portions of the OT that are infallible is to leave the door open for discord among believers, as they endlessly argue which parts are infallible and which aren't. Better just to accept the whole thing with no argument. After all, as the fundamentalist creed goes, "If it's in the Bible it must be true."

James Brown

What I don't understand is how, not just anyone, but a Christian would look at the Bible as a metaphor and not literal? Adam and Eve in the garden? Just a metaphor for how mankind has lost his way. Noah and the Ark? Just a metaphor for how God is a comfort to us in times of trouble? David and Goliath? No, of course there wasn't a real man named David--that's just a metaphor of how God is on our side when we're outnumbered. Jesus walking out of a tomb? No, that didn't happen either--it's a metaphor of how we will defeat death thanks to God.

Wait. Are some of the Bible stories metaphorical, and some literal? Ah, there's the rub--how to choose.

I know more about the religious mythos of other peoples now, because I've studied them on my own, and I see now how unoriginal the Hebrew scriptures are. But you can bet your boots I didn't know about that during my seventeen years of private Christian education. The very fact that you call it "religious myth" would put you into the sinner's camp back where I grew up. I never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh until I was in my early thirties. No, I nor any of my fellow students never read Joseph Campbell, precisely because what he illuminates contradicts what my teachers and my parents and my pastors were hammering into me all those years. Adam and Eve were real people, weighing so many pounds and having hair of a certain color, and they sinned. Jesus was just as real, and he didn't sin, so that I can now live a life without sin forever. That was the message I heard over and over, and yes, I find it hard to understand how anyone could shrug their shoulders and say, "Eh, the whole thing's just stories," but at the same time believe that without those stories we all are damned.

Johnny Skeptic

I still want to know why anyone should believe that except for scribal and copyist errors, the copies of the Bible that we have today faithfully represents the originals. After all, God refused to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message. That is proof enough that if God exists, he does not feel obligated to provide people with inerrant texts, or with any texts at all.

As the Gospel message spread, people who lived closer to Palestine had an advantage. When geography determines who gets to hear the truth, that is quite suspicious.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that it titled "One Nation Under God." The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethicity, gender, and age. Those factors are entirely secular. Religious truth that is dependent largely or entirely upon secular factors is questionable.

Clouseau

Thomas the Tank Engine has pronounced moral values- don't be lazy, greedy, boastful, etc. Its young readers do not debate these moral values, so they may be supposed to be inerrant also- though 'truth' through allegory does not have to be inerrant. The morality of Tom and Jerry is generally said to be distinctly errant, indeed it has become a mark of immorality.

Clouseau

But you live on the Dark Continent, apparently in a particularly shaded spot.

You seem to be acquainted only with peculiar minorities.