Authority of Scripture

[Guest shiloh357]

2 peter says nothing about the definition of inspiration and refers specifically to prophecy.

 

Wrong again, clb.   That passage specifically refers to holy men being moved upon by the Holy Spirit and writing accordingly.  That is a textbook definition of inspiration.  That it refers to specifically is not problematic because it is the paradigm for understanding the Scripture, a significant portion of which is prophecy.   II Tim. 3:16 gives us another layer of understanding in this regard.  ALL Scripture is God breathed.

 

Timothy tells me that Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, for training in righteousness: a rather broad and vague description!

 

I think you know what it means and that it is referring to issues pertaining to Christian faith and practice.  It isn't vague at all.

 

If you acknowledge that Scripture can be God-breathed and not inerrant, then I agree the two concepts are independent.  But if that is a contradiction in terms, then the point is moot: a mere subtlety not worth mentioning or criticizing someone for missing—pedantry, in other words.

 

God is inerrant.  He doesn't create errors.  So there is no way Scripture can come from Him and be full of substantive errors and contradictions.

 

You seem to have set your own standards on what the Bible can and cannot contain.  Who are you to say that the Bible can contain spelling errors?  God can't spell?  God can't copy accurately?

 

That is complete nonsense.  Scribal errors occur and that has nothing to do with God.  God isn't the one holding the pent.  God doesn't inspire copies or translations.  Inspiration only applies to autographs and I think you know that.  So your question is rather ridiculous.  I am embarrassed for you that you feel you need to post such garbage.

 

You seem to say that inerrancy is concerned with the big picture and not the details.  Could we not extend this to, say, Genesis?  Creation happened, whether it happened in 6 days, well, let’s not get caught up in the details?  That seems rather weak. By scribal errors you mean that Biblical authors made mistakes, or that church scribes over the years made mistakes while copying?  You seem to allude to the Chronicles/Kings discrepancy, right?  Or you saying that the Chronicler made a scribal error, or that Church scribes made an error?

 

Your comparison is invalid.   I never said that inerrancy isn't concerned with the details of the narrative in the stories or in the doctrines of the text.  I am saying that scribal mistakes in the copies that have come down to us don't adversely affect inerrancy.

 

We know that there are variants in the texts as they come down to us.  Scribal errors like adding an extra zero on to a number or something.  We have already accounted for those things and those kinds of errors do not provide any problem in terms of the inerrancy of scripture.  Honestly, you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

I certainly agree that most are ridiculous and blown out of proportion.  But there are “contradictions”; and some of the proposed solutions are so implausible only conviction in inerrancy would compel me to embrace them. Let’s look at a concrete example.  Most Christians will eventually meet the differing genealogies given for Jesus in Luke and Matthew.  When I was young I heard a lecturer explain that one genealogy was traced through Jesus’ mother, and the other through Jesus’ “father”, Joseph.

 

Excited, I picked up my Bible and studied the two passages….unfortunately I found no evidence in either gospel that Jesus’ ancestry was traced through anyone other than Joseph.   If the world had only one or the other gospel, it would never once question which parent our Lord’s genealogy was traced to.  So why the proposal? Because whoever made it needed the Bible to be free of errors.  Put another way, I have two options: either rely upon my reason which tells me that Matthew and Luke present incompatible genealogies, or embrace a theory despite all the exegetical evidence to the contrary?  If my faith were tied up with the conviction that unless the Bible is inerrant to the last iota, Jesus was not raised, I suppose my faith would crumble or my reasoning would take a back seat.  Since my faith is not tied up with inerrancy, I am free to say that the two genealogies are completely incompatible.

 

They are not incompatible at all. In ancient Jewish culture the son in law is counted as the son of his wife's father.  So it is not problematic that both genealogies go through Joseph.   Genealogies were done for the purpose of  proving one's property rights.  Without an accurate genealogical record, one could potentially dispossessed of their home.   Women were not allowed to own property so while one genealogy did go through Mary's lineage, it ended properly with Joseph.  It is completely consistent with what scholars know about the culture of that time period.  Again, you are simply making an issue out of a non-issue.

 

Curious, how do you address this: There are clearly two angels in Luke’s Resurrection seen; there is clearly one in Matthew and Mark’s. 

 

And how is that a problem for inerrancy?   Is there an irreconcilable contradiction in that?   Again, you seem to be creating a problem where none exists.

 

If I go to a St. Louis Cardinal's baseball game and I meet an old friend of the family,  I will call my mom up the next day and tell her about who I met at the game.   My friends at work will want to know about the details of the game.   I am relating the same event to both people, but in both cases, I only relate the information that is relevant to the story I am telling.   Both stories are true and accurate, but contain different information.   No contradiction.

 

It's the same with the Gospels.  The historical core (the resurrection) is intact.  That the four gospels differ on the number of women that visited the tomb or the number of angels that were present, but that is not an inerrancy issue.   All four Gospels affirm that Jesus rose from the dead.  The differing secondary details are exactly what we would expect from the four different accounts.  That actually supports their accuracy.   If they all agreed 100% on all details, the story would be suspect, as if they had gotten together and cooked up the story.

 

Specifically the damage it does to Christians fostered on it at home and at church; then they go to college and realize that the issue isn't so neat.  Their faith crumbles because they were forced fed the ridiculous idea that it is all or none with scripture.

 

It's the opposite really.  Kids are fed more on pizza and soda and are given almost no critical thinking skills to defend their faith.  That's why the crumble.  Most high school students couldn't define inerrancy.  It is likely they are not taught it at all in church.

 

I claimed that I am seeking the truth: unless you can read my mind there is really nothing for you to say against the claim.  It is a matter of psychology.  Of course You can say that I have taken positions that are wrong, but that is different from denying that I seek the truth.  A person can seek the truth and be wrong.  Paul believed he was serving God by persecuting the Church.

 

There is nothing in your posts to lead anyone to think you are seeking truth.  If anything all you are doing is railing against Christian doctrine.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said “Inerrancy” was a security blanket.  Note that it is all based on “needs”.  The logic: we need the Bible to be this; therefore it is this.  Pure subjectivity.

 

Wrong yet again.   If the Bible isn't inerrant then how do we know which parts are true?   You don't want what you are putting your ultimate faith in  to be wrong.   If the Bible is full errors and contradictions that cannot be reconciled, it can't be trusted as a source of truth that one can anchor their heart to.   I mean what if we got it wrong about Jesus and eternal life?   I bet you have no problem with believing the Bible is inerrant when you NEED it to be inerrant.

 

The one operating in subjectivity is you.

[a-seeker]

It was pointed out above that not a single "contradiction" has yet appeared in a thread that has become about "contradictions".  I remind everybody that the topic was originally the place of Reason in exegesis.  But I am happy to go wherever the current takes me.

 

I do not think the case of Genesis is a contradiction, for I do not think the author intended Genesis 1 and 2.4 to be chronologically consistent.  He would have to be an idiot if that were a mere fumble.

 

Other discrepancies...

 

Matthew has a single angel at the empty tomb; Mark has a "man" which might be an angel though it is not clear.  Luke has two angels.  John has none.

 

Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for our Lord.  The attempt to solve this by tracing one of them through Mary is unacceptable: the kind of desperate maneuver which, were it made by someone with views contrary to your own, would be laughed at.

 

The original ending of Mark has the women tell no one about the risen Lord.

 

In Luke 9 Jesus departs for Jerusalem.  But along the way he crosses from Samaria to Galilee and back.  Galilee is north of Samaria; Luke seems to think it is east.  Good maps were not in plenty.

 

Again, I would not consider all these to be "errors".  Some are stylistic:  Mark's original ending is exquisite: clearly the women did tell people because otherwise the gospel would never have been written; but Mark puts the burden on the reader to marshal forth with the gospel.

 

 

In listing these I must once more say that I am a believer and none of these discrepancies poses a serious threat to my faith in the risen Lord.  If Luke, by miraculous conjuring, were told that he got Galilee and Samaria wrong, perhaps he'd laugh, or blush, but still, the end of the gospel concludes with a man coming back to everlasting life!  The climax surely drowns out all sneering remarks about geography, or how many angels were actually at the tomb.

 

And, again, I am aware that solutions have been proposed.  I am certainly eager to entertain new ones (after all, I would LOVE to discover that the Bible is inerrant!) but unless they are reasonable solutions, intellectual honesty forbids me to accept them.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 

2 peter says nothing about the definition of inspiration and refers specifically to prophecy.

 

 

Wrong again, clb.   That passage specifically refers to holy men being moved upon by the Holy Spirit and writing accordingly.  That is a textbook definition of inspiration.  That it refers to specifically is not problematic because it is the paradigm for understanding the Scripture, a significant portion of which is prophecy.   II Tim. 3:16 gives us another layer of understanding in this regard.  ALL Scripture is God breathed.

 

 

 

Merely stating that I am wrong doesn’t make me wrong.  Read the passage.  The context is about prophecies, not geography or science.  Only an inerrantists, convinced of inerrancy on other grounds, would make this passage about inerrancy.

Timothy tells me that Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, for training in righteousness: a rather broad and vague description!

I think you know what it means and that it is referring to issues pertaining to Christian faith and practice.  It isn't vague at all.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the teaching is about doctrine, a theme of the letter.  Inerrancy in the finest details like geography was not one of the doctrines.  It is inconceivable to think that Paul’s faith in Scripture (OT) would be shaken if he learned that it contained geographical errors, or historical errors, or that the Sun did not revolve around the earth but the prophets thought it did.

If you acknowledge that Scripture can be God-breathed and not inerrant, then I agree the two concepts are independent.  But if that is a contradiction in terms, then the point is moot: a mere subtlety not worth mentioning or criticizing someone for missing—pedantry, in other words.

God is inerrant.  He doesn't create errors.  So there is no way Scripture can come from Him and be full of substantive errors and contradictions.

 

 

 

 

Okay, then your point was moot.  Although you did through in the word "substantive".  Can there be unsubstantive errors in the original documents?

[a-seeker]

 

 

You seem to have set your own standards on what the Bible can and cannot contain.  Who are you to say that the Bible can contain spelling errors?  God can't spell?  God can't copy accurately?

 

That is complete nonsense.  Scribal errors occur and that has nothing to do with God.  God isn't the one holding the pent.  God doesn't inspire copies or translations.  Inspiration only applies to autographs and I think you know that.  So your question is rather ridiculous.  I am embarrassed for you that you feel you need to post such garbage.

 

 

 

 

I see.  I was not sure what you meant by scribal errors.  Now I know.  I thought you were implying that the Chronicler, who is greatly dependent on Kings (and therefore, in some sense a scribe) had made an error.

 

As regards to spelling errors in our most reliable manuscripts….how do you know that they were not accurately copying Scripture?  WE don’t have the original manuscripts.  If you say, because the Bible is inerrant, well, that merely supports my case: that you begin with inerrancy, and then find ways to make it inerrant.

 

You seem to say that inerrancy is concerned with the big picture and not the details.  Could we not extend this to, say, Genesis?  Creation happened, whether it happened in 6 days, well, let’s not get caught up in the details?  That seems rather weak. By scribal errors you mean that Biblical authors made mistakes, or that church scribes over the years made mistakes while copying?  You seem to allude to the Chronicles/Kings discrepancy, right?  Or you saying that the Chronicler made a scribal error, or that Church scribes made an error?

Your comparison is invalid.   I never said that inerrancy isn't concerned with the details of the narrative in the stories or in the doctrines of the text.  I am saying that scribal mistakes in the copies that have come down to us don't adversely affect inerrancy. We know that there are variants in the texts as they come down to us.  Scribal errors like adding an extra zero on to a number or something.  We have already accounted for those things and those kinds of errors do not provide any problem in terms of the inerrancy of scripture.  Honestly, you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

 

I addressed this above.  I was merely confused as regards to your point.  I have no problem now that I understand what you are saying.

 

I certainly agree that most are ridiculous and blown out of proportion.  But there are “contradictions”; and some of the proposed solutions are so implausible only conviction in inerrancy would compel me to embrace them. Let’s look at a concrete example.  Most Christians will eventually meet the differing genealogies given for Jesus in Luke and Matthew.  When I was young I heard a lecturer explain that one genealogy was traced through Jesus’ mother, and the other through Jesus’ “father”, Joseph.

 

Excited, I picked up my Bible and studied the two passages….unfortunately I found no evidence in either gospel that Jesus’ ancestry was traced through anyone other than Joseph.   If the world had only one or the other gospel, it would never once question which parent our Lord’s genealogy was traced to.  So why the proposal? Because whoever made it needed the Bible to be free of errors.  Put another way, I have two options: either rely upon my reason which tells me that Matthew and Luke present incompatible genealogies, or embrace a theory despite all the exegetical evidence to the contrary?  If my faith were tied up with the conviction that unless the Bible is inerrant to the last iota, Jesus was not raised, I suppose my faith would crumble or my reasoning would take a back seat.  Since my faith is not tied up with inerrancy, I am free to say that the two genealogies are completely incompatible.

 

They are not incompatible at all. In ancient Jewish culture the son in law is counted as the son of his wife's father.  So it is not problematic that both genealogies go through Joseph.   Genealogies were done for the purpose of  proving one's property rights.  Without an accurate genealogical record, one could potentially dispossessed of their home.   Women were not allowed to own property so while one genealogy did go through Mary's lineage, it ended properly with Joseph.  It is completely consistent with what scholars know about the culture of that time period.  Again, you are simply making an issue out of a non-issue.

 

 

 

 

Once more, I want to understand what you are saying first, for it is interesting.  You are saying that one genealogy REALLY goes through Mary, though it appears to go through Joseph, and the other really and clearly goes through Joseph, right, and so both were descendants of David?  Assuming a yes, did Luke know that the genealogy REALLY went through Mary?

 

Curious, how do you address this: There are clearly two angels in Luke’s Resurrection seen; there is clearly one in Matthew and Mark’s. 

And how is that a problem for inerrancy?   Is there an irreconcilable contradiction in that?   Again, you seem to be creating a problem where none exists.

 

 

 

 

I honestly was just curious.

If I go to a St. Louis Cardinal's baseball game and I meet an old friend of the family,  I will call my mom up the next day and tell her about who I met at the game.   My friends at work will want to know about the details of the game.   I am relating the same event to both people, but in both cases, I only relate the information that is relevant to the story I am telling.   Both stories are true and accurate, but contain different information.   No contradiction.

 

It's the same with the Gospels.  The historical core (the resurrection) is intact.  That the four gospels differ on the number of women that visited the tomb or the number of angels that were present, but that is not an inerrancy issue.   All four Gospels affirm that Jesus rose from the dead.  The differing secondary details are exactly what we would expect from the four different accounts.  That actually supports their accuracy.   If they all agreed 100% on all details, the story would be suspect, as if they had gotten together and cooked up the story.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I don’t understand inerrancy afterall!!  For I absolutely agree that all four agree that Jesus was raised, and that that is the important point.  Now, are you saying that there were in fact two angels at the tomb, and Matthew and Mark know this, but leave out one, or are you saying that we cannot know how many were at the tomb because the gospels disagree on that, but it hardly matters for inerrancy? 

 

 

I claimed that I am seeking the truth: unless you can read my mind there is really nothing for you to say against the claim.  It is a matter of psychology.  Of course You can say that I have taken positions that are wrong, but that is different from denying that I seek the truth.  A person can seek the truth and be wrong.  Paul believed he was serving God by persecuting the Church.

There is nothing in your posts to lead anyone to think you are seeking truth.  If anything all you are doing is railing against Christian doctrine.

 

 

 

 

Well, I will let “anyone” decide for themselves.  But based on what I have seen, several would disagree with you.

 

clb

 

[a-seeker]

 

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said “Inerrancy” was a security blanket.  Note that it is all based on “needs”.  The logic: we need the Bible to be this; therefore it is this.  Pure subjectivity.

 

Wrong yet again.   If the Bible isn't inerrant then how do we know which parts are true?   You don't want what you are putting your ultimate faith in  to be wrong.   If the Bible is full errors and contradictions that cannot be reconciled, it can't be trusted as a source of truth that one can anchor their heart to.   I mean what if we got it wrong about Jesus and eternal life?   I bet you have no problem with believing the Bible is inerrant when you NEED it to be inerrant.

 

The one operating in subjectivity is you.

 

 

I can't believe you just wrote that.  It is pure subjectivity.  

 

If the Bible isn't inerrant then how do we know which parts are true?   

 

 

 

The implied answer is, we don't, which inerrantists don't like...........therefore we say it is inerrant.  How is that not pure subjectivity?  How is that not need-based.  What if you asked a Muslim why he believes in the Koran and he says because it is inerrant?  Every single one of your responses could easily come from his mouth.

 

The real answer is, use your brain.  We have good, reason based, tools for doing good history.

 

 

I bet you have no problem with believing the Bible is inerrant when you NEED it to be inerrant.

 

 

 

I would gladly take that bet.  What I trust first is reason.  reason confirms certain things in the Bible.  One of them happens to be the resurrection...that's good enough for me.

 

 

clb

Edited August 17, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Faithful Centurion]

In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption. In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year. To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture. I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions: yes, I do; and so do you. I will take another controversial topic to make my point.

Well I must stop you for a moment. You have an assumption here that isn't quite correct. Noah took two of every "kind" not species. (Kind being fairly close to Genus or Family.) Also, it involves a logical direction of thought. If the mountains of the earth (high hills) were covered by water, then this eliminates the idea of a local flood.

In Genesis 1 beasts are clearly created before man and woman on the sixth day. But when we turn to chapter 2 it appears they (as well as birds) are created after man but before woman: that is, the Hebrew and the logical sequence of the narrative all suggest this—so much so that if all we had were chapter two, there would be no question as to the order in which beast, bird, and mankind were created. Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true. I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.

This is another mistake in what you've been told. It's ok, it's very common. Genesis 1 is a general overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is focused on the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. It isn't another account, but a more detailed account.

If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Some conclude that, despite the Hebrew and the narrative sequence, the beasts and birds mentioned in chapter 2 are referring to creatures already made. Others, like myself, maintain that the two accounts are chiefly thematic, rather than historically chronological (obviously there is chronology involved: wherever there is a narrative there must be sequence. But the point of Genesis 1 and two is not to give an historical account of creation). Whichever is right (if either) is not the point of this OP. The point is that both readers feel the need to reconcile the two chapters of Genesis with the principle of non-contradiction; but whence does this principle derive? It cannot derive from Scripture. Even if we found a Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) word corresponding to the English “contradiction” within a proposition condemning the concept, still this would merely be one more proposition at odds with certain other propositions. The fact is that the principle is derived not from Scripture but from Reason. The shortest reflection on this discovery will show that very few Bible readers truly embrace Scripture as their sole or even highest authority. Wherever there is a discrepancy in Scripture, it is reason which has exposed it; and wherever there is felt the need to resolve it, it is reason which issues this demand. Wherever a solution is offered, it is reason which has discovered it. Both the threatened principle, the need for a solution to the threat, and the solution itself all find their source in Reason, not Scripture. But this is just another way of saying that Scripture is obligated to something other than reason. If Scripture is truly inspired, it must meet certain criteria; criteria imposed upon it from without.

The practical result of this thesis is small but important. The answer to such rhetorical outbursts as, “Who are you to determine which parts of Scripture are literal and which are not;” or “Who are you to question Scripture?!” is, “I am a thinking person, endowed by God with Reason.” But it would be better to drop these accusations altogether: for, as the old saying goes, wherever a finger is pointed at someone else, three are pointed at one’s self. We are all demanding of Scripture certain characteristics to meet our own definition of “inspired”. I do not require of it inerrancy; some do. But the principle of non-contradiction is, to some degree, always operating.

clb

A lot of what I've read in this section seems to derive from a few misconceptions you have about scripture, rather than actual problems with scripture. I'd be happy to help you get through a few other misconceptions or confusing points with you if you like, and help you understand them.

[Hobbes]

Inerrancy of scripture;  what does it mean really?  No mistakes?  Or no deviating from the message we are supposed to have in the scripture to live by?  No scripture going against scripture as they should be all in agreement?

 

Mistakes may have been made in copying like in numbers and names, but that's hardly changing the message for us to live by and certainly not going against other truths in the scripture regarding the testimonies of the Son.

 

All I know is that Jesus validates scripture.

 

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

Jesus defended the writings of Moses;

 

John 5:³⁹ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me....⁴⁶ For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. ⁴⁷ But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

So let's address the two Genesis account.  As Brother Conner pointed out, it is not done in a chronoligical order.  There is a flashback involved here; you know that scene in movies where they go back to an earlier scene but more in depths like?  There is proof of this in His words.

 

Genesis 2:³ And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. ⁴ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. ⁶ But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. ⁷ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

 

Verse 3 is the ending scene of the seventh day of creation and then begins the other topic of addressing the coming generations of man in verse 4.  Moses as led by the Holy Spirit, testified that God had not made man yet for the reason why He made a mist to water all the plants of the earth.  Then He went in more detail of the sixth day in the creation of man, and eventually woman.  That was a flashback scene if anyone ever saw one.

 

So if there be any contradictions, it is more than likely we just need His help in understanding His words.

 

2 Peter 1:¹⁶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. ¹⁸ And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. ¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. ²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Hobbes

[Hobbes]

 

 

I would expect that kind of comment to come from Richard Dawkins.  It is disturbing when people who allege that they are Christians start sounding like atheists.

 

 

Inerrancy is a doctrine, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not a placebo.   No you are not seeking truth.  You are challenging the integrity of God's word and by extension you are challenging God's integrity.   Your posts demonstrate direct enmity with the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree with you more Shiloh.  Either one believes the record we have been given or they don't.  You can't believe in the God of the Bible and then turn around and fight against the God of the Bible for that is the true character of the atheists.

 

 

 

Probably should hold off on making that kind of judgment.  Just because a believer is not rooted in the word, that it means they are really athiests.

 

Mark 4:¹⁶ And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; ¹⁷ And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

 

This is why it is the job of His disciples to teach new believers in the word.

 

Matthew 18:¹⁰ Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. ¹¹ For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. ¹² How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? ¹³ And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. ¹⁴ Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. ¹⁵ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

 

Colossians 2:⁵ For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. ⁶ As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: ⁷ Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. ⁸ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. ⁹ For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. ¹⁰ And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

[a-seeker]

Inerrancy of scripture;  what does it mean really?  No mistakes?  Or no deviating from the message we are supposed to have in the scripture to live by?  No scripture going against scripture as they should be all in agreement?

 

Mistakes may have been made in copying like in numbers and names, but that's hardly changing the message for us to live by and certainly not going against other truths in the scripture regarding the testimonies of the Son.

 

All I know is that Jesus validates scripture.

 

John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

Jesus defended the writings of Moses;

 

John 5:³⁹ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me....⁴⁶ For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. ⁴⁷ But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

So let's address the two Genesis account.  As Brother Conner pointed out, it is not done in a chronoligical order.  There is a flashback involved here; you know that scene in movies where they go back to an earlier scene but more in depths like?  There is proof of this in His words.

 

Genesis 2:³ And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. ⁴ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. ⁶ But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. ⁷ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

 

Verse 3 is the ending scene of the seventh day of creation and then begins the other topic of addressing the coming generations of man in verse 4.  Moses as led by the Holy Spirit, testified that God had not made man yet for the reason why He made a mist to water all the plants of the earth.  Then He went in more detail of the sixth day in the creation of man, and eventually woman.  That was a flashback scene if anyone ever saw one.

 

So if there be any contradictions, it is more than likely we just need His help in understanding His words.

 

2 Peter 1:¹⁶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. ¹⁸ And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. ¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. ²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

Hello Hobbes,

 

I appreciate that you call me Brother Connor (even if you put an e in there )  I hope that you can continue to consider me a brother even after I insert a correction here.

 

I do not see Genesis 2 as a flash back to day 6.  I must make a distinction about chronological inconsistencies here.  a thing can be chronologically inconsistent in the sense that it does not flow forward without interruptions, i.e. flashbacks, 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.  That is how you and most on this forum view the two accounts. But a thing can be chronologically inconsistent because the same events are placed in relation to each other differently between two accounts.  In Genesis 1 the animals come before Adam and Eve; in Genesis 2 they come between the two.  Read literalistically, there is no way to reconcile the two: this is not just a matter of flash back.  Genesis two is not a focus on day 6.

 

Having said this, I do not think the inconsistency significant.  Both report creation, but in different ways with different themes and different points to be made.

 

clb