Apologetics a "Copout"?

[Brian_Ingram]

Mike O:

1. Evolution and Genesis. This was a contentious topic.
   One person pointed out that to take the Bible at its face value, the Earth would need to be 6,000 years old.
   Among his other points:
   Geological evidence does not support a global flood a la Noah’s Ark

1/ Genesis is highly allegorical and is seen as such by the Catholic Church. For example the creation in six days was a lesson for how we should rest, reflect, worship and honour God, and is not to be taken literally, other than God created. Genealogy, so important to the Hebrew people is given not as an accurate generational account but as a means to connect them to Adam, and other important people it is not meant to be a literal historical account of all generations

In regards the flood that it did not cover the whole of the earth is taken however there is evidence that there was a catastrophic flood in the generally area some 6000 years ago.
Mike O:

Men have existed for 2,000,000 years and evolved from ape-life Cro Magnons to Neanderthals, etc.,

Humans are all genetically closer than other animals on the planet
and have been around for 230,000 years. There is DNA support for humans coming from a single set of parents
Mike O:

Inaccurate scientific claims are made in the Bible such as the sun revolving around the Earth, etc.

Human observation of an event is just that.
Mike O:

1. The sins of the Church.
   The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Galileo and the sex abuse scandal even today .

The sins of the Crusades were minor when compared to the Allied bombing of Dresden and the Atomic bombing of Japanese’s cities
Galileo was placed under a very comfortable house arrest more for his erroneous wanderings into theology than his discovery that the earth went around the sun.
Mike O:
It was alleged that Pope Paul, extremely indecisive, decided on Humanae Vitae’s teaching only because he could not change the teaching as it would cast great doubt on the Church’s moral authority.

Read Humanae Vitae and see its prophetic message, The fact that the Western world has accepted contraception also lead them to accept abortion and ultimately euthanasia. This has led to a disastrous birth rate since the 1970’s which will have dire economic and social costs within 30 years
Mike O:
The former trajectory of marriage with sexual intercourse occurring after “betrothal” but before marriage,

The Diache, Clement of Alexandria’s Paidagogos, the many disciplinary writings of Tertullian, teach fornication (sex by unmarried people) and adultery (sex between married people with other partners) are condemned in the strongest terms,
Mike O:
The relative ease with which people can obtain annulments, seemingly by paying enough money to have a canon lawyer .

If a tribunal is deceived in giving an annulement through deceit, or personal favour the valid marriage remains a valid marriage
Mike O:

1. Smaller biblical inconsistencies such as:
   The census of Quirinius in Luke’s Gospel appears to be inconsistent with Herod’s death because the two events did not coincide as St. Luke said they did

I have done a lot of research on this matter and feel confident that there was a census done in 6/7BC the time of Christ’s birth. Augustus ordered one in 8BC and it took two years to complete. Luke is spot on he reports their were two censuses done under Quirinius the first one was when he was military commander in the area the second in 6Ad when he was Governorof Syria. The Luke 2:2 “Quirinius governing
Syria” in the first sensus of 6/7BC is a misleading translation from the Greek
Mike O:
The Old Testament’s portrayal of God as having done “evil” and “slaying nations” compared to the New Testament’s portrayal of God as perfectly loving, incapable of evil, etc.

The nature of God was revealed in Jesus Christ. Up to that time Mans perception of God was ambivalent at best. However It also was very insightful of Gods love for His people.

Pax

Brian

 

[hurst]

Gottle of Geer:

OK - however, they can’t all be true in the same sense: an account of a blasphemous assertion about Christ is not true in the same way as the blasphemous assertion: it’s a true account of an untruth.​

I agree with you here, yes.

Another example:

Psalm 52:1 Unto the end, for Maeleth, understandings to David. The fool said in his heart: There is no God.

What is true here pertains to what God is revealing, what the fool said in his heart.

St. Jerome showed that the immunity of Scripture from error or deception is necessarily bound up with its Divine inspiration and supreme authority.

Certainly the Holy Spirit didn’t have the intention to deceive us with Scripture. We must read it with good will, reverence, and humility - asking the Holy Spirit to enlighten us.

hurst

 

[hurst]

## The reference is probably to 1 Kings 7 -

• 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

It occurred to me that either approximate measurements were made, or else exact measurements were made. If they were exact, then certainly the diameter and circumference should reveal the pi relation.

It might be possible that the brim measurement was taken on top (it was 5 cubits in height), and the compass measurement taken on bottom, and perhaps it was tapered slightly so that it was wider at the top…

I looked this one up and thought about it.

I noticed the next verses:

24 And a graven work under the brim of it compassed it, for ten cubits going about the sea: there were two rows cast of chamfered sculptures. … 26 And the laver was a handbreadth thick: and the brim thereof was like the brim of a cup, or the leaf of a crisped lily

I noticed it says there is a graven work under the brim, and that the brim was like the leaf of a crisped lilly. Could that mean there was an overhanging ledge?

I did some calulations, and find that if the brim overhung the ledge by about 4.1 inches (assuming 1 cubit=18 inches), then the numbers work out, since the diameter of the portion below the rim would then be less than 10 cubits. For a pool that is 15 feet in diameter, a ledge that wide makes sense.

But this is just one possibility. The point is that no error, no deception, and no fraud is involved in Holy Scriptures, because God, the Author, does not deceive.

hurst

 

[hurst]

## But a Cretan prophet - in this case, Epimenides - is still a member of the set “Cretans”. If Cretans are liars, then members of the set “Cretans” are also members of the set “liars”: unless an exception is made; and it isn’t:

Regardless of whoever the prophet might be, the understanding I have is that a prophet is considered to be one who speaks not his own words. So by definition, the exception is inherent. That means he may very well be a liar by virtue of being a Cretian, but when or if God uses him to reveal truth, He can without breaking the logic.

The same can be said for the Pope. The Pope is infallible in his official teaching capacity. But he may be a Cretian or hold false opinions, etc.

Pointing out obvious contradictions with a smirk is to despise the innocence of the Author. It is intellectual arrogance, is it not? Don’t they think the Author realizes how it appears?

I suppose in their “prudence”, they would choose a dime over a nickel. … Unless they realized the nickel was a buffalo nickel in mint condition. But that information is not visible to them because they don’t look deeper - because they think they already know enough to decide.

Luke 10:21 In that same hour, he rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight.

God prefers to honor those who honor Him, who trust Him. Let us revere His Scriptures, if we believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.

hurst

 

[Mike_O]

Good to see so many responses.

1. To Gottle of Greer:

I read of Pope Paul’s predicament in two places. One was a book by theologian Michael Lawler, and the other was a report by Robert Blair Kaiser that offered a quite detailed account of people who personally spoke with the Holy Father on the topic.

1. To the many people who seem to be discounting the existence of a historical being such as Adam or the fallibility of the Bible:

This is why I asked these questions, primarily because obvious disagreement exists.

I think it should be made very clear that the Church teaches the existence of a historical being Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman. So, apparently, it is mandatory for a Catholic to accept this belief.

Therefore, inserting comments about how this is a “myth” or a “fable” puts you opposite the Church.

Further, the Church teaches that the Bible is the highest source of teaching authority and that it is INFALLIBLE.

Again, the comments about how we are to take only “religious truth” and discard much of the Bible as fable or fiction or veiled seems inconsistent with Church teaching.

1. I recall another few objections that people brought up about marriage which I thought I would post here:

"The Church says in the Catechism that “Christ Himself has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.” In truth, there is no theological basis for saying such a thing because Christ never referred to marriage as a sacrament.

In Scripture, there does not even exist a commandment to marry. There is an injunction to procreate, but God oversaw his Israelite people fornicating without marriage, and even into the days of Christ, people like the woman at the well who had had several husbands and was living with one who was not her husband were not exhorted to give up this life.

St. Paul’s condemnation of “fornication” does not translate the Greek as we know the word fornication to mean today."

 

[jdnation]

Mike O:

Further, the Church teaches that the Bible is the highest source of teaching authority and that it is INFALLIBLE…

I don’t think the Church promotes the Bible as being infalliable, since it is only a book and can and does fail to convert others on its own. I think it is properly said that the Bible is INERRANT. But anyway I understand your confusion over the beginning.

For those thinking Genesis is anything other than history ought to think about the points raised in this article:

"Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1 were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory."

Whole article:
answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1101genesis_history.asp

 

[zian]

Yes, and while you’re plumbing around in Answers in Genesis, please do be sure to stop at this Answers in Genesis page, where they recount, to their credit (at least to some extent), erroneous creationist criticisms of evolution. These are many of the same arguments that continue to be propounded in similar threads in this forum.

 

[Mike_O]

This is precisely why this offers so much confusion.

I am not a biologist, nor have I seen the fossil records and the skeletonized derivations of ancient ape-men, nor have I circumnavigated the globe to verify that it is round and not flat. But certain things seem widely accepted enough to be true.

If the Church says that the Bible is “inerrant” or “infallible” (and because Scripture is the highest source of teaching in the hierarchy of teachings, I recall the term being “infallible” because encyclicals, which are lower than Scripture, are given this distinction), then what specifically is meant by “infallible” as regards the details?

Apparently, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, but if one adds the ages of men since Adam (Adam’s life span + Cain’s + Methusaleh’s, etc. to Christ, and then + 2005 years) the number is far, far less than the billions Earth has supposedly existed for.

This allows for:

1. Animals and “ape-men” were created LONG before Adam, but Adam was infused with the first human soul 6,000 years ago.
2. There is some other detail missing.

 

[Anne_G]

Mike O:

This is precisely why this offers so much confusion.

I am not a biologist either, but I am filled with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is true in every way. I take the story of creation in that, day means unspecified time. ie God created the earth in six unspecified periods of time. The Bible is infallible if the Holy Spirit is guiding you.
.

 

[hurst]

Gottle of Geer:

And what of Paul’s quoting as Scripture a passage from a speech in Job by one of Job’s friends - the very friends whom the Lord in Job declares “have not spoken about me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has” ?

You bring up an interesting point. It would seem that God’s statement puts a shadow over everything Job’s friends said. If so, then one would think that Scripture elsewhere would treat it as false by association. Yet Paul seems to refer to it. Even if Paul were referring to a different source, it still says the same thing. This implies that any other source that affirms what we now see having a shadow over it is itself false by association. That includes references to Job’s virtues (Job 4:3-6), visit and message of an angel (Job 4:12-21), and a whole host of other things. That you see a contradiction here is no surprise.

But what if God is referring to Job’s friends repeatedly harping on the theme “God is punishing you because you have sinned, so now fess up”, in spite of the fact they have no evidence whatsoever of anything that Job did wrong? In fact, God is not doing this to punish Job. Now it makes sense.

What Job’s friends are saying about God is not in itself false. But that they are using it to judge Job is the problem:

Job 6:25 Why have you detracted the words of truth, whereas there is none of you that can reprove me? 26 You dress up speeches only to rebuke, and you utter words to the wind. 27 You rush in upon the fatherless, and you endeavour to overthrow your friend.

Here Job is testifying to the truth of their words while simultaneously deploring the fact that they are falsely accusing him. Later in chapter 42, God rules in favor of Job when he says to Eliphaz “you have not spoken right things before me”. And it should now be clearer that God is not referring to the detracted truths as not being right, but to another aspect of their behaviour.

You see, apparent contradictions in Scripture only serve to bring us to a clearer understanding of the truth - providing you innocently seek it in faith.

Our Lord Himself referred to Scripture as totally reliable:

1. Yet it is worthwhile dwelling on this point a little: when Christ preached to the people, whether on the Mount by the lakeside, or in the synagogue at Nazareth, or in His own city of Capharnaum, He took His points and His arguments from the Bible. From the same source came His weapons when disputing with the Scribes and Pharisees. Whether teaching or disputing He quotes from all parts of Scripture and takes His example from it; He quotes it as an argument which must be accepted. He refers without any discrimination of sources to the stories of Jonas and the Ninivites, of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, of Elias and Eliseus, of David and of Noe, of Lot and the Sodomites, and even of Lot’s wife. (cf. Mt. 12:3, 39-42; Lk. 17:26-29, 32). How solemn His witness to the truth of the sacred books: “One jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled” (Mt. 5:18); and again: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35); and consequently: “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19). Before His Ascension, too, when He would steep His Apostles in the same doctrine: “He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. And He said to them: thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day” (Lk. 24:45).
   – Encyclical by Pope Benedict XV: Spiritus Paraclitus

Consider the fact that God would actually like to hide true wisdom from those who have no faith:

Luke 10:21 In that same hour, he rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight.

Let us remain reverent towards God Word, and not be like the impious or atheists who, seeking to find fault, will themselves be caught in their own devices in the end.

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

It is clearly the work of God to bring truth out of liars, justice from the wicked, and, in general, good out of evil.

hurst

 

[JimG]

Mike O:

If the Church says that the Bible is “inerrant” or “infallible” (and because Scripture is the highest source of teaching in the hierarchy of teachings, I recall the term being “infallible” because encyclicals, which are lower than Scripture, are given this distinction), then what specifically is meant by “infallible” as regards the details?

The Church calls the Bible “inerrant.” It is not infallible.

“Infallible” means not to teach error. The bible is not infallible because it does not teach anything. It cannot sit at the lectern and give a lecture about its contents. You cannot ask it what it means by a certain thing. Only a person can teach; a person can teach infallibly. A book can only be inerrant.

For a further discussion, see this article from one of Karl Keating’s newsletters, under the heading “The Bible Is Not Infallible.”

 

[awalt]

I think one of the biggest errors man makes, is reading the Bible and believing with certainty that he knows what it means in total.

A lot of good information here on Genesis, let me just add this point. If we are so certain we know what it says, how can we conclude with certainty that the Bible says God created the universe in 6 days, what does "Day: actually mean since God created the sun on day 4, the same time as day was separated from night? Land was created on the third day, so no earth means what in terms of what a day is?

On your other questions, I would humbly suggest you made one error - there are NO sins of the Church. There are sins of people of the church. Read Matthew 7, around 7:15, Jesus warned us of men who would deceive. And of course all men are sinners, and the Church will always be persecuted per the Bible so we should not be surprised at this.

 

[jdnation]

awalt:

A lot of good information here on Genesis, let me just add this point. If we are so certain we know what it says, how can we conclude with certainty that the Bible says God created the universe in 6 days, what does "Day: actually mean since God created the sun on day 4, the same time as day was separated from night? Land was created on the third day, so no earth means what in terms of what a day is?

Well in the beginning on what is the first day, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and brought forth Light from darkness and separated them, called the light day and the darkness night. So basically all three things were there for a day to occur… a source of light, the darkness, and the earth. All that was required was a complete rotation and it indicates this where it says, “there was evening and then morning.” The sun was not required. This sort of light is usually referred to as the ‘Shekinah glory’ of God, something I believe emanating from Himself. The Shekinah glory is also believed to be what we more commonly thought as ‘The Star of Bethlehem,’ the unusually bright heavenly body in the sky that led the wise men to Jesus, it was not an actual star.

 

[Mike_O]

An interesting addition to one point about Adam and Eve’s historical reality.

This is from Catholic Answers: (catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp)

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). "

So, to those speaking about a “myth” of Genesis 1 and 2, I’d put forth that you’re in conflict with the Church. The question remains about how to reconcile this with science.

 

[Mike_O]

I continue to remember some more points that people made, so another I recall having been addressed was the age of some of the ancient men. Methusaleh was said to have lived to be 969 years of age. Adam, similarly, was well over 900. Physiologically speaking, one wonders how this is possible. A newborn infant has a heartbeat of 220 beats per minute and this generally declines one beat per year. This was cut off age at 220, not to mention susceptibility to diseases.

 

[Aaron_I]

I will start with the age question. The hearrate numbers given aren’t accurate. I’m 18 years old and have a heartrate of 60bpm. I’m not sure, but I think anything 120+ is unhealthy. Question, could a difference in their calendar and ours cause part of the problem?

Back to real arguments. Here are a couple of very difficult Bible verses. The two stories of creation present a different chronology. What came first: man (Gen 2) or animals (Gen 1)? Also why did God put a mark on Cain “lest anyone should kill him on sight” if his parents were the only humans around? Gen 37 contains two different, conflicting stories. First they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. The very next verse he is taken out of the cistern by some Midianite traders. Also one verse has Reuben standing up for Joseph while another has Judah doing it. This is not contradictory, but is in line with the JEPD theory (which I will get back to in a little bit). Finally I would like to cite Matthew 1:17 “Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.” The problem with this verse is that it is wrong. Either God can’t do addition or objective historical falsities are permissable in Scripture.

I am a proponent of the JEPD theory. Granted, it is held in by many atheists, but also by several Catholic theologians and even JPII referenced it. Higher biblical criticism was condemned by Piux IX, encouraged by Leo XIII, condemned by Pius X, and ultimately opened up by Pius XII. The guidelines of using higher biblical criticism are presented in the 1993 Pontifical Biblical Commission document, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”. The key with this theory is to see the OT as the Israelites journey towards God. When there are errors presented, they are because of the people’s misunderstanding of God’s actions and not by any inconsistencies on God’s part. Indeed such things hardly qualify as errors because we can look past them to the fuller sense of the bible and still see the immutable God of the NT.

The problem with using JEPD is the possibility of losing sight of the inspiration of the Bible. When the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy are discarded, people begin to dismiss important verses as being misunderstandings of the authors. Worse is the “miraclephobia” that can engulf people who view the Bible as a purely historical document. That being said, viewing the nativity star as a supernova that was in the making since the beginning of time doesn’t necessarily diminish God’s role in the event. After all, how cool is it that he planned that thing from the moment of creation. One I like even better is there being a volcanic eruption in the time of Moses. This possibly accounts for the devastating hail. More than that it serves as the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire that guided the Israelites and ultimately the cause of the tsunami that destroyed the egyptians as the tried to cross the Reed Sea (Reed Sea is by the Red Sea; remember Hebrew did not use vowels). Perhaps this seems to dimish the role God plays in it to some people, but I see it as amazing. That God had this ready from the time of creation clearly shows his omnipotence.

Ultimately I accept the Adam and Eve story (why not, it came before Gen 1). Did it necessarily happen 6,000 years ago, I don’t know. I do agree with the need for a special creation of the soul and for there being only one set of parents for the human race. JimG referenced a fundamental change in human nature about 6,000 years ago. I agree that this is the soul, which is expressed in the natural world as grammar. My apologetics teacher last year mentioned this, but I believe he gave an earlier date such as 20-50 thousand years ago. Ultimately the historical time doesn’t matter. Do I believe Melchizedek existed? Not sure, it’s certainly possible he was made up or at least his story expanded to show a historical reason for tithing in a time when people weren’t doing it. But along with considering that I know that if such is the case then it was put in through God’s guidance and in accord with his will. What reason would God have for a minor character with a brief mention in the OT, read the book of Hebrews!

With the coming of Christ, the understanding of God found in the Scriptures was finally completed. Jesus fulfills the OT and there is nothing more to be added.

I would like to add that higher biblical criticism is entirely optional. You are certainly free to be as literal as you want in your translation. I just find that JEPD helps me understand parts of the the OT that seem unchristian but in truth are perfectly okay.

 

[Pentecost2005]

2. The sins of the Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Galileo and the sex abuse scandal even today with cardinals elevated to their status by the Pope having transferred offending priests to other parishes all offer troubles to many of these people.

I’d like to know why the Crusades are such glaring “proof” that the Church is evil, as though the Muslims were just minding their own business and playing nice.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

hurst:

Regardless of whoever the prophet might be, the understanding I have is that a prophet is considered to be one who speaks not his own words. So by definition, the exception is inherent. That means he may very well be a liar by virtue of being a Cretian, but when or if God uses him to reveal truth, He can without breaking the logic.

The same can be said for the Pope. The Pope is infallible in his official teaching capacity. But he may be a Cretian or hold false opinions, etc.

Pointing out obvious contradictions with a smirk is to despise the innocence of the Author. It is intellectual arrogance, is it not? Don’t they think the Author realizes how it appears?

I suppose in their “prudence”, they would choose a dime over a nickel. … Unless they realized the nickel was a buffalo nickel in mint condition. But that information is not visible to them because they don’t look deeper - because they think they already know enough to decide.

God prefers to honor those who honor Him, who trust Him. Let us revere His Scriptures, if we believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.

hurst

By all means let us give very great honour to the Biblical writings. That needn’t imply they are altogether free of all error. Christ saves, not Genesis 5; He sent us the Holy Spirit, not the battle of Ai. Faith is in Christ, not in every assertion of the Book of Job. These have their place, but they are not Christ, and shouldn’t be allowed to become obstacles to Him rather than means of being drawn to Him. He was not a Bible teacher, but is God’s Revelation of His redeeming Love. Christ is no obstacle to Christ - the Bible, holy as it is, can be, and has been; it hid Him from some of His country-men, and did not reveal Him to all ​

Those who do stand up for total and unlimited inerrancy, do need to give some kind of answers to the objections to inerrancy that goes deeper than quoting Popes or saying it’s impious not to say Scripture is inerrant, though. Answers that deal with the detail of the objections, instead of rabbit-punching just short of them, and not dealing with them. Othewise it can look as though something is being taught for no reason beyond that it is being taught - for God has given us reason, not treated us as automata. ##

 

[hurst]

Gottle of Geer:

…
Those who do stand up for total and unlimited inerrancy, do need to give some kind of answers to the objections to inerrancy that goes deeper than quoting Popes or saying it’s impious not to say Scripture is inerrant, though. Answers that deal with the detail of the objections, instead of rabbit-punching just short of them, and not dealing with them. Othewise it can look as though something is being taught for no reason beyond that it is being taught - for God has given us reason, not treated us as automata. ##

I absolutely agree. Just keep in mind that you can’t reason with some people…

hurst

 

[Mike_O]

Aaron, that is a very interesting post.

You did, however, mention some parts of Genesis that do not seem to be explained by JEPD.

For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 offer mutually exclusive accounts.

Either God created animals first and people second or people first and animals second. This has nothing to do with Moses and other biblical writers misunderstanding or misinterpreting anything; one thing happened and the other did not.

This is where we come to inerrancy and what it means. In the Gospels, for example, in some accounts there is one angel at the tomb, in others two, in some both thieves blaspheme against Christ on the cross, in others one is repentant, etc.

Clearly, were these to be taken as offerings of truth in their entirety, something would have to be in error. Likewise with the story of Joseph being sold into slavery.

To the person who commented about the Crusades: Doing evil so that good can come of it not permissible. The pope began the crusade, not a Muslim.