Alright, we've danced around this issue several times, and I would like to address it.
Put simply, there is quite a widespread belief amongst Christians that the Bible is somehow the Word of God and infallible. This can come in one of two flavors:
1. Belief that the Bible is infallible and everything in it is literally true
2. Belief that the Bible is infallible and everything in it is true in some vague, undetermined way
But both of these are very much at odds with both observable reality, both in terms of scientific and historic fact and the fact that the Bible contradicts itself frequently.
Writ simply, I believe it to be a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. People have been told what they are supposed to say, and thus they repeat it, despite the fact that right in front of their faces is the truth that runs totally contrary to what they have been taught to think. They are taught to believe that the Bible is infallible, and thus accept it without critically examining the very text they are claiming to be infallibly authoritative.
Well, I've created this thread to point out the Emperor has no clothes, and open up the floor for those who wish to defend their belief in the Bible's infallibility.
To start discussion off, let us begin at the beginning: Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25.
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.’
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
We have here two separate and different stories about how God created the world. These stories both contradict scientific knowledge, and both contradict each other.
Well that's a problem, isn't it? Right off the bat, in the very first two books of the Bible, we have a serious problem with claiming that the Bible is infallible. Both those who profess the Bible's literal infallibility, and those who believe the Bible is infallible in an undefined way, must reconcile with the fact that both Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 demonstratively contradict both scientific fact and each other. Put simply, neither Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 cannot both be correct, and neither of them can be correct if what science says about cosmology and evolution are correct.
So I ask anyone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible: how can you justify this belief in light of the fact that what is written in Genesis contradicts both scientific fact and itself?
I don't myself believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I do know some typical arguments in favor of inerrancy that are made by Christian apologists. Here's one I learned from William Lane Craig:
Premise 1: Whatever God says is true.
Premise 2: Jesus is (or at least speaks for) God.
Premise 3: Jesus teaches that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God. (various scriptural citations here)
Conclusion: Therefore, it's true that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.
I find this argument interesting, because its mere validity would mean that if you do find a falsehood in the Bible, then at least one of these three premises must be false.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Aristotle, Synalon?
The Bible does imply that π = 3. But there are exegetical workarounds for this, of which the most plausible to me is simply that the cubit is not an exact measurement. (And yes, I have heard fundamentalists claim that God miraculously made π = 3 for this particular object.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At the very baseline, when talking about the Bible you have to acknowledge the inaccuracies due to translation and transcription errors.
At the second level, you have consider that 'The Bible' as a cohesive text did not exist in Jesus' lifetime. When Jesus talked about scripture, he was talking about the Torah. What was actually included in the Bible was decided later, as all the books of the New Testament weren't even written until about up to ~200 years later.
I don't myself believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I do know some typical arguments in favor of inerrancy that are made by Christian apologists. Here's one I learned from William Lane Craig:
Premise 1: Whatever God says is true.
Premise 2: Jesus is (or at least speaks for) God.
Premise 3: Jesus teaches that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God. (various scriptural citations here)
Conclusion: Therefore, it's true that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.
I find this argument interesting, because its mere validity would mean that if you do find a falsehood in the Bible, then at least one of these three premises must be false.
Haha, Jesus also trusted Peter (and by extension the Catholic Church) to be his rock, his word on Earth.
That's about the only part of the Bible many Evangelicals don't like to take too literally.
It was definitely in the Bible..."Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" Leviticus 11:21
I would have to question whether "goeth upon all four" is a literal statement or an idiomatic statement that means something along the lines of a creature that walks on the ground.
It was definitely in the Bible..."Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" Leviticus 11:21
I would have to question whether "goeth upon all four" is a literal statement or an idiomatic statement that means something along the lines of a creature that walks on the ground.
I think it's an issue with taxonomy, where 'on all four' means walking animal not literally four legs, possibly mixed with a translation/transcription error.
At the very baseline, when talking about the Bible you have to acknowledge the inaccuracies due to translation and transcription errors.
Agreed, we should also be careful that we're not trying to read too much into the minor details, or over-analyzing specific words chosen by the translators.
Like insects having four legs - I wouldn't consider that to be an "inaccuracy" but rather an incomplete understanding of the original reference. Given the options I consider it more likely that either "on all fours" was a colloquialism, or that they understood the description here to mean something different that what we do today, than that the writer was mistaken about how many legs an insect has.
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
The only way I can see to get around this is to perform some kind of extravagant contortion like saying that the hind-legs of a grasshopper don't count, or something.
I don't think it is a "contortion" to think that the writer here is using language that was understood differently than how we use it today. Over the course of a few thousand years terminology is going to change. In our modern understanding we also know that whales aren't fish, but to someone living thousands of years ago it would have made perfect sense to say that a whale is a fish and that's how the audience would have likewise understood it. I think the idea that terminology is fluid makes far more sense than the idea that someone living thousands of years ago in the middle east, who more than likely ate insects as part of their diet, just had no idea how many legs they had.
The only way I can see to get around this is to perform some kind of extravagant contortion like saying that the hind-legs of a grasshopper don't count, or something.
Some crazy creation science sites do in fact say that the hind legs don't count, which seems like a stretch. However, amongst competent apologists there is a response to the four-legged insect debacle that I actually think is pretty good: look at the proposition expressed by the sentence in question and ask what it is actually claiming. Moses isn't giving entomology lessons here; he is making a moral claim about which bugs should and shouldn't be eaten. The only empirical data required is that he give enough information so that his people can correctly identify the kosher bugs. He doesn't actually have to get the entomology right in order to be considered truthful here.
I do find the notion of biblical inerrancy fascinating, given how UTTERLY BLATANTLY FALSE it is.
The bible now has sections in it that, if you tried to convince the venerable Bede were in the bible, he would punch you in the mouth*.
Some of them are really quite famous. We have quite a lot of copies of the bible from various time periods, and one of the fascinating things is that the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"** isn't in any copies from before around 1100 AD, and starts creeping in over the course of about a century.
Meaning the bible was either errant in 1000 AD or is errant now.
* as was the style at the time.
** I'm pretty sure I am remembering the right story; CBF looking it up right now
I do find the notion of biblical inerrancy fascinating, given how UTTERLY BLATANTLY FALSE it is.
The bible now has sections in it that, if you tried to convince the venerable Bede were in the bible, he would punch you in the mouth*.
Some of them are really quite famous. We have quite a lot of copies of the bible from various time periods, and one of the fascinating things is that the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"** isn't in any copies from before around 1100 AD, and starts creeping in over the course of about a century.
Meaning the bible was either errant in 1000 AD or is errant now.
* as was the style at the time.
** I'm pretty sure I am remembering the right story; CBF looking it up right now
Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which perhaps was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.
Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:
"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."[14]
But we're asking whether or not the book is completely infallible - why would you dream of just glossing over little imperfections, however trivial? If it's meant to be completely infallible, you could scarcely give a reading harsh enough.
I'm getting the feeling that you have a different view of / understanding of what "biblical inerrancy" is than I do. Further, I'd argue that most Christian scholars assign i the same meaning as I do. That meaning being: the teachings of the Bible are inerrant. Thus, if the Bible is teaching that insects have exactly four legs, that would be an error. If, rather, the Bible is teaching that this subset of insects are Kosher -- and expresses such with sufficient clarity that a reader can unambiguously determine what is being referred to, the passage is not an error.
But, let's face it -- what we are arguing over here is an extremely minor quibble within a significantly larger document. If the only ammunition you have against biblical inerrancy is this passage you've already lost the argument in most peoples minds. Now, I don't think that's your only argument. I'm sure you have something else, something with a bit more meat to it that allows for a more in depth discussion.
I'm getting the feeling that you have a different view of / understanding of what "biblical inerrancy" is than I do. Further, I'd argue that most Christian scholars assign i the same meaning as I do. That meaning being: the teachings of the Bible are inerrant. Thus, if the Bible is teaching that insects have exactly four legs, that would be an error. If, rather, the Bible is teaching that this subset of insects are Kosher -- and expresses such with sufficient clarity that a reader can unambiguously determine what is being referred to, the passage is not an error.
Except that's not what the word "inerrant" means.
Inerrant means, very simply, "incapable of being wrong." You're saying, "Yes, the Bible makes errors, but the underlying point is true." This is exactly the opposite of inerrant. Inerrant doesn't mean you sort of gesture towards the truth's general direction. Inerrant means you are infallible. For the Bible to be the Word Of God and inerrant, it must be infallible.
But, let's face it -- what we are arguing over here is an extremely minor quibble within a significantly larger document.
No, we aren't. In an argument over perfection, there is no such thing as an "extremely minor quibble." If something is wrong, it is wrong, and means that the document is fallible, not infallible.
Second, that's far from the only error the Bible has.
If the only ammunition you have against biblical inerrancy is this passage you've already lost the argument in most peoples minds.
First of all, one only needs to point out one flaw to make the Bible fallible. That's what the definition of the word "fallible" is.
Second, it's not the only flaw. I pointed one out in the OP. And it's not the only one, but I pointed it out because it's one of the most salient seeing as how it's in the opening pages of the thing. Would you care to defend that?
I don't think the Genesis creation story is very convincing to cite inaccuracies in the bible.
The bible is replete with stories made to illustrate a point, its rife with metaphor and symbolism.
What you're saying sounds like:
Jesus said, breaking the bread "this is my body."
Fact. Jesus broke bread. The bread was clearly not his body in any physical or scientific sense. Therefore Jesus was lying on the spot. The bible is wrong.
You're citing Genesis against cosmology and evolution??
If your argument is to be convincing, you have to at least address the role of symbolism in the bible and why its necessary to be so insistent that Genesis is be interpreted scientifically, while other parts of the bible may be interpreted metaphorically.
Anywayz, if you're arguing that one can't take the bible as literally true, I think that is more than self evident from the bible itself.
Examples where the bible explicitly suggests that it is not to be taken as literally true.
Example 1:
John 3:
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. [b]“Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”[/b]
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
Example 2: John 6.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Inerrant means, very simply, "incapable of being wrong." You're saying, "Yes, the Bible makes errors, but the underlying point is true." This is exactly the opposite of inerrant. Inerrant doesn't mean you sort of gesture towards the truth's general direction. Inerrant means you are infallible. For the Bible to be the Word Of God and inerrant, it must be infallible.
No, bLatch is saying that the teachings of the Bible is inerrant. That is, not literally every word in the Bible is inerrant but rather the fundamental point it is trying to make.
A very different definition of the inerrancy of the Bible as believed in the early 20th century U.S., but one that can be acceptable imo.
In any case, Jesus himself supposedly used a lot of symbolism and vague talking-points. It's difficult to take his words to mean literal things. Tomcat26 addresses a couple of these. Is the bread and wine LITERALLY his flesh and blood? Or is he saying that eating them creates a covenant, a life-long bond, between you and Christ?
I don't think the Genesis creation story is very convincing to cite inaccuracies in the bible.
First of all, it's not "the Genesis creation story." There are two separate stories, and they contradict both themselves and science. So why would they not be convincing when making a case for inaccuracies in the Bible?
The bible is replete with stories made to illustrate a point, its rife with metaphor and symbolism.
Ok, here's the thing, "metaphor" and "symbolism" aren't just words. They have meanings. You cannot simply say, something is a metaphor or something is a symbol, and just expect the discussion to end there. In order to say something is a metaphor or a symbol, you must demonstrate that it is a metaphor or a symbol. Specifically, you must actually demonstrate what, precisely, these things symbolize.
So demonstrate this with Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Illustrate where the symbols are, and what they mean.
You're citing Genesis against cosmology and evolution??
Of course I am. The world was not created in one day or six days. It was created over billions of years. Nor was life created in the order either story in Genesis cites.
If your argument is to be convincing, you have to at least address the role of symbolism in the bible and why its necessary to be so insistent that Genesis is be interpreted scientifically, while other parts of the bible may be interpreted metaphorically.
Except therein is the entire problem with your post: you don't just randomly assume things in the Bible are metaphors. A metaphor is something that's meant to represent something else. Therefore, you have to demonstrate that something is to be taken metaphorically by showing what, exactly, the thing that's written is symbolizing.
And the problem with Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is they are clearly not meant to be taken metaphorically.
In Genesis 1, God is said to have separated waters from waters by a dome, which is the sky. In other words, according to Genesis 1, beyond the sky, there is water. Not space, water. That's what exists beyond the sky. Now, we know this to be scientifically false. Beyond the sky is not water, it is space. There isn't some vast ocean of water outside of our atmosphere, it's space.
Someone might be quick to argue that this could be a symbol or metaphor, but the problem is twofold:
1. Metaphor for what, exactly? Something is not just randomly a metaphor. If it's a symbol for something, it must be a symbol for something. What, in this case, is that something?
2. In this particular case, the waters are definitely not metaphorical, because later God is described as parting the dome separating the waters, thus allowing the water beyond the sky in, in order to cause the Great Flood. So unless the Great Flood is a metaphor — and I think we all agree that the Great Flood narrative is clearly meant to describe a literal Great Flood — there's a huge problem with saying that the waters are metaphorical. But if they're not metaphorical, then there is in turn a huge problem because that contradicts observable fact.
Then there's Genesis 2:4-25. In Genesis 2:4-25, it is said that man was created before all the other animals. Every one. Not only does this contradict Genesis 1-2:3, which says that man was created on the sixth day, but it also contradicts basic scientific fact. Man was not created before all of the animals.
And to say that's a metaphor, again, results in the same set of problems:
1. Metaphor for what, exactly?
2. No, it's clearly not a metaphor, as the Adam and Eve narrative being literal fact is what much of Bible hinges on.
No, bLatch is saying that the teachings of the Bible is inerrant. That is, not literally every word in the Bible is inerrant but rather the fundamental point it is trying to make.
If I say that the lesson of Moby Dick is true, but that Moby Dick asserts that whales are fish, and whales are not fish, but Moby Dick is still infallible, does that make any sense?
No, it does not, because I have not only failed to prove Moby Dick to be infallible, I have proven precisely the opposite, because I have shown a thing that Moby Dick asserts to be a fact that is not a fact.
Now, that's not to say that Moby Dick contains no truth at all. It could have valuable lessons to teach us about life, and those lessons could certainly be true. The fact that something is wrong about a scientific fact does not mean it's wrong on its fundamental lesson.
The thing is, though, that's not what infallibility means. Infallibility doesn't mean that something gets most things right. Or even important things right. It doesn't mean that the moral of the stories being told are true even when a bunch of things being said are not true.
Infallibility means incapable of being wrong. Not-fallible. Something that is infallible is ALWAYS correct in everything it asserts. If something is infallible, everything put forth as a fact by that thing must be true. The veracity of every assertion made by that thing must be correct. Else it is not infallible.
So therefore, bLatch is incorrect, because that is not what the word "infallible" means. He is incorrect from a definitional standpoint.
Further, he is incorrect from an evidential standpoint. The Bible claims many things to be true that are not correct. Several have been noted here. That pi equals 3. Maybe the insect thing, although I'm not sure that's necessarily a fault as it might be a quirk of the language. The idea of the universe being created in either six days or one day.
There's also the most obvious: the assertion that the final judgment and resurrection of the dead would come within the lifetime of the followers of the original Christ movement, which, needless to say, did not happen and still hasn't almost 2,000 years later.
A very different definition of the inerrancy of the Bible as believed in the early 20th century U.S., but one that can be acceptable imo.
It's also a very different definition from what the word "inerrant" actually means.
In any case, Jesus himself supposedly used a lot of symbolism and vague talking-points. It's difficult to take his words to mean literal things. Tomcat26 addresses a couple of these. Is the bread and wine LITERALLY his flesh and blood? Or is he saying that eating them creates a covenant, a life-long bond, between you and Christ?
Except what TomCat26 conspicuously did not do was address the supposed metaphors in Genesis.
That's the thing about saying something is a metaphor rather than to be taken literally: you have to actually demonstrate what, precisely, the metaphor is for. Something can't be a symbol unless it symbolizes something. So what does Genesis symbolize?
And yes, it's pretty clear in context that Jesus says a lot of things that are metaphorical, in part because the books do a lot to highlight that Jesus is speaking in parable, and often outright explain exactly what he means. Therefore, we understand from the context of the narrative which things are metaphorical.
By the same token, we can understand that the events in Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken literally. The fall of Adam and Eve happened, and Adam and Eve were clearly not metaphorical people, but literal people. The creation of waters beyond the sky was not an act of metaphorical water creation, but literal water creation.
The onus is not on me to prove why Genesis should be interpreted as a series of metaphors and symbolism. But on you to explain why should we take Genesis so literally that we should use it as a series of scientific explanations against cosmology and evolution.
If you don't address this, then your argument is just weak because it doesn't address it's simplest counter. In fact, it seems more reasonable to me to not take Genesis literally.
The bible doesn't clearly state which parts are to be taken literally and which ones as symbolism. But what we do know is that the bible is filled with symbolism. God speaks symbolically to his people. He does this all the time. I mean all the time--from the lamb, the lion of Judah, the bread being the body, the blood being the wine, pieces of garment representing the twelve tribes of Israel, Elijah laying on one side of his body for about a hundred days, being born again, living water.
None of those things are literal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be at the ready to interpret pretty much any part of the bible symbolically, metaphorically, even philosophically.
In fact most of the bible is written that way. You get some history and some actual events in Exodus, kings, genesis, judges. But the minor prophets? Jeremiah? Zechariah? Isaiah? Romans? Titus? Psalms? Proverbs? Where's the story? Where's the events?
In fact, I would argue that the majority of the bible is not on events or anything concrete at all. And when it is, it dips back quite regularly into metaphor, philosophical musing, teaching, allegory, parable. All these things are there.
You would have me prove to you why I should not take Genesis literally. Just as simply I can dare you to take this section of the bible from Ecclesiastes literally.
What's the literal, scientific analysis of this? If you would rather interpret this philosophically, what makes you change now to a philosophical eye rather than a literal scientific eye?
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
or what about this?
The wicked flee though no one pursues,
but the righteous are as bold as a lion.
how do i interpret this scientifically?
He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn, your vindication like the noonday sun.
how can righteousness shine at all? Vindication has no physical luminosity! therefore the bible is wrong.
Don't just tell me that Genesis should be interpreted literally and scientifically. How am I supposed to know that highroller's interpretation is the right one--which parts to see literally which ones are not to be asserted against cosmology and evolution. You might think its self evident which ones are to be construed in which way. But I don't.
The onus is not on me to prove why Genesis should be interpreted as a series of metaphors and symbolism.
Of course it is. Do you affirm that Genesis is correct? Therefore, demonstrate how Genesis can be correct. If you claim it is a metaphor, then please explain the metaphor. Proclaim to the world this veracity of Genesis.
But on you to explain why should we take Genesis so literally that we should use it as a series of scientific explanations against cosmology and evolution.
Because that's what it says on the page. It describes a six day creation, and then a one day creation.
Now, you yourself have said that this is obviously not true:
Anywayz, if you're arguing that one can't take the bible as literally true, I think that is more than self evident from the bible itself.
You're right, it is more than self-evident that Genesis 1 and 2 do not describe the literal truth, as they have creation stories that are clearly wrong, as they are contrary to both each other, and to science.
But you are also arguing against this proving that the Bible is fallible:
I don't think the Genesis creation story is very convincing to cite inaccuracies in the bible.
Ok, so demonstrate WHY you think this. How can you read a creation story in which everything is created in six days, and then read a creation story in which everything was created in a single day, and say, "No, this is not inaccurate," even though cosmology and biology clearly state otherwise?
How do you reconcile your belief that the Bible is infallible with the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 — at least at face value — are so at odds with reality and each other?
If you don't address this, then your argument is just weak because it doesn't address it's simplest counter. In fact, it seems more reasonable to me to not take Genesis literally.
But that's not a counter, because you haven't demonstrated how else to interpret the passage in a way it makes sense.
You've suggested it might be interpreted metaphorically/symbolically, but you haven't stated what those symbols are, or how they make any sense with the rest of the Bible.
The bible doesn't clearly state which parts are to be taken literally and which ones as symbolism.
Answer these two questions:
1. Do you believe the Great Flood was a literal Flood, or a symbolic Flood?
2. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, or symbolic people?
Don't just tell me that Genesis should be interpreted literally and scientifically. How am I supposed to know that highroller's interpretation is the right one--which parts to see literally which ones are not to be asserted against cosmology and evolution. You might think its self evident which ones are to be construed in which way. But I don't.
Here's the deal: I don't see any reason to not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally. I think it's just fine to say they're meant to be taken literally, because I think that's the way the people from which those stories came would have interpreted it. To me, they were people telling creation stories just like any other people telling creation stories from any other ancient culture. Every culture has at least one story telling how the world was created, and none of the others were correct.
Therefore, I see no reason why this one has to be any different. Why can't the Hebrews thousands of years ago have just believed that the world was created in six days? Or one day? Why couldn't they just have made up stories to explain what they did not know? That's what every other culture did.
However, there are some people who believe that the Bible is infallible. If the Bible is infallible, then Genesis MUST be true, for it is a part of the Bible, and if the Bible is infallible, no part of it can be wrong. And since Genesis MUST be true, Genesis 1 and 2 MUST be true in turn.
Therefore, my question is very simple: HOW can Genesis be right? HOW can book that says God created the universe in six days, and then subsequently say God created the universe in one day be correct, when we know the universe was neither created in six days or one day?
If you believe Genesis to be true, please explain to me HOW it can be true. And don't say, "Well you've failed to consider the possibility of metaphor," because that's not an explanation. If you believe it to be symbolic, explain how it is symbolic. Explain your interpretation and justify why it is correct.
I'm getting the feeling that you have a different view of / understanding of what "biblical inerrancy" is than I do. Further, I'd argue that most Christian scholars assign i the same meaning as I do. That meaning being: the teachings of the Bible are inerrant. Thus, if the Bible is teaching that insects have exactly four legs, that would be an error. If, rather, the Bible is teaching that this subset of insects are Kosher -- and expresses such with sufficient clarity that a reader can unambiguously determine what is being referred to, the passage is not an error.
Except that's not what the word "inerrant" means.
Inerrant means, very simply, "incapable of being wrong." You're saying, "Yes, the Bible makes errors, but the underlying point is true." This is exactly the opposite of inerrant. Inerrant doesn't mean you sort of gesture towards the truth's general direction. Inerrant means you are infallible. For the Bible to be the Word Of God and inerrant, it must be infallible.
But, let's face it -- what we are arguing over here is an extremely minor quibble within a significantly larger document.
No, we aren't. In an argument over perfection, there is no such thing as an "extremely minor quibble." If something is wrong, it is wrong, and means that the document is fallible, not infallible.
Second, that's far from the only error the Bible has.
If the only ammunition you have against biblical inerrancy is this passage you've already lost the argument in most peoples minds.
First of all, one only needs to point out one flaw to make the Bible fallible. That's what the definition of the word "fallible" is.
Second, it's not the only flaw. I pointed one out in the OP. And it's not the only one, but I pointed it out because it's one of the most salient seeing as how it's in the opening pages of the thing. Would you care to defend that?
Several things:
First, If you look at my quote I was not responding to you. Hence my statements like "If this is the only quibble you have..." and my failure to address the example you gave in the OP were because I wasn't addressing the OP. I was addressing the specific quote.
Second, I acknowledged that there are significant issues that can be raised and need to be addressed. The "goeth on four legs" statement is not one of them.
Third, with regards to inerrancy, am I correct in understanding you as saying that in order for the Bible to be inerrant every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, and book, must be literally true, devoid of any context? Because if thats your position, of course it's not "inerrant" -- Hell, Jesus' parables weren't literally true. [b]But that is not what inerrant means[/q]. When someone says the Bible is inerrant, they are saying that the statements made by the Bible are inerrant. One must anaylize the words presented in their context to understand what the statement is.
With regards to the "goeth on four legs" context, the statement is not an entomological lesson on the biology of bugs. Rather, the statement is a statement that this classification of bugs is kosher, and the other bugs are not kosher.
Finally, I object to your overly dismissive attitude toward people with my position on what "inerrancy" means. If you want to know why I did not address your post directly you need look no further than how you phrased bullet point number 2 in your original post.
First, If you look at my quote I was not responding to you. Hence my statements like "If this is the only quibble you have..." and my failure to address the example you gave in the OP were because I wasn't addressing the OP. I was addressing the specific quote.
It is, however, interesting to me that you would defend Biblical inerrancy in a thread about Biblical inerrancy, and then criticize someone for quibbling while at the same time not addressing the more salient errors pointed out about the Bible in the thread.
Second, I acknowledged that there are significant issues that can be raised and need to be addressed. The "goeth on four legs" statement is not one of them.
I'll have to look that one up in further detail. It could be just a quirk of the language.
Third, with regards to inerrancy, am I correct in understanding you as saying that in order for the Bible to be inerrant every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, and book, must be literally true, devoid of any context?
Of course not.
When someone says the Bible is inerrant, they are saying that the statements made by the Bible are inerrant. One must anaylize the words presented in their context to understand what the statement is.
I agree.
Finally, I object to your overly dismissive attitude toward people with my position on what "inerrancy" means.
Why do you feel it was overly dismissive?
My attitude toward people who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God is that I find people believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God for no other reason than they were taught that this is what they were supposed to believe. I believe this because I find no evidence to point to the infallibility of the Bible, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Now, you might be the exception, bLatch. You might, as you seem to imply, actually have a well-reasoned argument for believing that the Bible is inerrant. You might have a really great reason why Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 don't contradict either each other or science. In which case, would you care to share it?
You said that you felt bigger issues needed to be raised and addressed, right? Well, bigger issue raised, would you care to address it?
You said that you felt bigger issues needed to be raised and addressed, right? Well, bigger issue raised, would you care to address it?
Honestly? I'd prefer not to. At least not with someone who has already established that they are going to dismiss my arguments as "hand wavey".
I'm fairly certain that you are well aware of the argument that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be a literal historical text, but rather a theological essay containing "essential truths" about man's relationship to God, told in figurative language. (Wording stolen from another user on another site, not my own).
Further, this is exactly my point when I assert that what the passage is saying is inerrant, even if the specific wording chosen, then translated, then translated again, does not present a scientific truth. Within the context of the passages it does not appear that the author intended the passages to be literal scientific truth. If it is true that the intent of the author is to express correct theological ideas, and those theological ideas are correctly expressed, the passage is inerrant even if it utilizes metaphors or other incorrect poetic language.
The inerrant portion is not the minutia, it is the teachings. For the same reason that a typographical error, or a typesetting error does not render the bible no longer inerrant, utilization of metaphors and scientifically inaccurate statements within the context of a lesson does not render the lesson incorrect.
The bar you assign to inerrancy is orders of magnitude higher than what a typical Christian means when they claim the bible is inerrant, and really only fits with what hardcore evangelicals believe.
No, bLatch is saying that the teachings of the Bible is inerrant. That is, not literally every word in the Bible is inerrant but rather the fundamental point it is trying to make.
A very different definition of the inerrancy of the Bible as believed in the early 20th century U.S., but one that can be acceptable imo.
When most people say the Bible is inerrant, this is what they mean. They do not mean that the minutia of every statement outside of it's appropriate context is literal truth.
[quote from="Highroller »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/579665-biblical-infallibility?comment=26"]
When most people say the Bible is inerrant, this is what they mean. They do not mean that the minutia of every statement outside of it's appropriate context is literal truth.
Hm, I may have confused the concept of Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism with one another, if Wiki is to be believed.
Interesting to see that people take these in such diverse ways.
Honestly? I'd prefer not to. At least not with someone who has already established that they are going to dismiss my arguments as "hand wavey".
*Sigh* bLatch, the reason people don't agree with your arguments is because you don't back them up. What is freely given is freely dismissed.
I'm fairly certain that you are well aware of the argument that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be a literal historical text, but rather a theological essay containing "essential truths" about man's relationship to God, told in figurative language.
Would you care to back that argument up?
Further, this is exactly my point when I assert that what the passage is saying is inerrant, even if the specific wording chosen, then translated, then translated again, does not present a scientific truth.
Ok, well, turns out we have the Greek, and we have the Hebrew. So if you're going to claim a translation error, cite the translation error. Demonstrate where, exactly, the translation errors happened, and what the true meaning of the passage is.
If you cannot demonstrate a translation error, then the specific wording chosen can't be faulted as inaccurate or unfaithful to the original passage. And if the wording given demonstrates that the message is saying something scientifically untrue in a statement about how God created the world? Yes, that most certainly demonstrates the Bible as errant.
Within the context of the passages it does not appear that the author intended the passages to be literal scientific truth.
Justify this. It seems pretty clear that they did intend exactly that. The Sabbath is not a metaphorical seventh day, it falls on a literal seventh day. The waters beyond the sky are not metaphorical waters, they are literal ones, because the story of Noah depicts a literal Flood, and those literal waters are the same waters described in Genesis. The story of Adam and Eve depicts literal people, not figurative ones, as Adam and Eve are crucial to the rest of Torah, and in turn Christianity.
And why not apply this to every other passage? Is David a metaphor, or a real person? Is Jesus a metaphor, or a real person? John the Baptist: metaphor or literal?
See how easy this is turned back on you? Metaphor is not an arbitrary word. It's not a Get Out of Jail Free card. You have to demonstrate your interpretation of a text to be correct. You have to back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it is not "overly dismissive" to dismiss you. It is logically correct to dismiss you, because what is offered without evidence is dismissible without evidence. Freely given, freely dismissed.
If it is true that the intent of the author is to express correct theological ideas, and those theological ideas are correctly expressed, the passage is inerrant even if it utilizes metaphors or other incorrect poetic language.
No, if the passage says this is the way God created the world — which it does — and it describes something that is contrary to how the world is actually created — which science tells us — then it is wrong, and therefore not inerrant.
And if there are TWO stories that say "This is how God created the world," and they both say different things, they cannot both be right. P and not-P cannot be true. That's rudimentary logic.
The inerrant portion is not the minutia, it is the teachings.
And the Bible teaches how God created the world. And the Bible teaches how God created a world a second time, which is different from the first time. And they're both wrong.
The bar you assign to inerrancy is orders of magnitude higher than what a typical Christian
That does not mean anything when the typical Christian believes that the Bible is inerrant only because they are told that the Bible is inerrant.
Alright, I'll read over this and edit my comments at the bottom.
When most people say the Bible is inerrant, this is what they mean. They do not mean that the minutia of every statement outside of it's appropriate context is literal truth.
If the Bible teaches something false, then it is not inerrant.
And if the Bible teaches that the world was created in six days, and then in one day, then the Bible is false. Six days cannot be one day, one day cannot be six days, man cannot precede the creation of animals and yet still come after them, man and woman cannot both be created after the animals and at separate times before and after animals, and none of those above are compatible with science at all.
The Bible teaches all of those things. Therefore the Bible is false.
For the Bible to be inerrant, all claims it makes must be true. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created," is about as blatant as can be.
EDIT:
Ok, bLatch, here are the problems you need to address with this article:
Real History
The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
Except Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 AND science.
Adam and Eve: Real People
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).
Which contradicts biology. Also, the story of how Adam and Eve were created contradicts Genesis 1.
The inerrant portion is not the minutia, it is the teachings.
And the Bible teaches how God created the world. And the Bible teaches how God created a world a second time, which is different from the first time. And they're both wrong.
The bar you assign to inerrancy is orders of magnitude higher than what a typical Christian
That does not mean anything when the typical Christian believes that the Bible is inerrant only because they are told that the Bible is inerrant.
It means EVERYTHING!
In order to accuse someone of being wrong in their belief that the Bible is inerrant you have to take *their* definition of inerrancy. If someone understands inerrancy to not require a literal scientific truth of every partial statement, then you playing gotcha games doesn't prove jack *****.
Lets try this hypo: You approach me and say "Say, bLatch, how did you get to work today?". I reply with "I drove my car". You respond by pointing to my SUV and going "A-ha! Your statement is in error! that is not a car, that is a light truck!". You have not caught me making an erroneous statement because the statement I was making was not "I drove a vehicle that is classified by the government as a 4 wheel car to get to work today". The statement I was making was "I drove my personal vehicle to work today". The question of errancy is *not* whether the minutia is correct, it is whether the statement is correct.
Likewise, if the author is writing a poetic account of creation (which by all accounts I've read, Genesis is) the statement being made is not a scientific statement with regards to how God created the world, it is a statement that he did.
Never mind the linguistic impossibility of him creating the earth in a time period defined by the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees. The statement of "days" cannot be literally true, any more than I can draw a circle with four sides in euclidean space.
This is all setting aside the stance that the first chapter is teaching creation of the world and the second chapter is teaching the creation of the Garden.
TL;DR You can't prove that my belief that the Bible is inerrant wrong by using a definition of inerrancy other than my definition of inerrancy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Put simply, there is quite a widespread belief amongst Christians that the Bible is somehow the Word of God and infallible. This can come in one of two flavors:
1. Belief that the Bible is infallible and everything in it is literally true
2. Belief that the Bible is infallible and everything in it is true in some vague, undetermined way
But both of these are very much at odds with both observable reality, both in terms of scientific and historic fact and the fact that the Bible contradicts itself frequently.
Writ simply, I believe it to be a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. People have been told what they are supposed to say, and thus they repeat it, despite the fact that right in front of their faces is the truth that runs totally contrary to what they have been taught to think. They are taught to believe that the Bible is infallible, and thus accept it without critically examining the very text they are claiming to be infallibly authoritative.
Well, I've created this thread to point out the Emperor has no clothes, and open up the floor for those who wish to defend their belief in the Bible's infallibility.
To start discussion off, let us begin at the beginning: Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25.
And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.’
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
We have here two separate and different stories about how God created the world. These stories both contradict scientific knowledge, and both contradict each other.
Well that's a problem, isn't it? Right off the bat, in the very first two books of the Bible, we have a serious problem with claiming that the Bible is infallible. Both those who profess the Bible's literal infallibility, and those who believe the Bible is infallible in an undefined way, must reconcile with the fact that both Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 demonstratively contradict both scientific fact and each other. Put simply, neither Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 cannot both be correct, and neither of them can be correct if what science says about cosmology and evolution are correct.
So I ask anyone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible: how can you justify this belief in light of the fact that what is written in Genesis contradicts both scientific fact and itself?
Premise 1: Whatever God says is true.
Premise 2: Jesus is (or at least speaks for) God.
Premise 3: Jesus teaches that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God. (various scriptural citations here)
Conclusion: Therefore, it's true that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.
I find this argument interesting, because its mere validity would mean that if you do find a falsehood in the Bible, then at least one of these three premises must be false.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The Bible does imply that π = 3. But there are exegetical workarounds for this, of which the most plausible to me is simply that the cubit is not an exact measurement. (And yes, I have heard fundamentalists claim that God miraculously made π = 3 for this particular object.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At the second level, you have consider that 'The Bible' as a cohesive text did not exist in Jesus' lifetime. When Jesus talked about scripture, he was talking about the Torah. What was actually included in the Bible was decided later, as all the books of the New Testament weren't even written until about up to ~200 years later.
Haha, Jesus also trusted Peter (and by extension the Catholic Church) to be his rock, his word on Earth.
That's about the only part of the Bible many Evangelicals don't like to take too literally.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I would have to question whether "goeth upon all four" is a literal statement or an idiomatic statement that means something along the lines of a creature that walks on the ground.
I think it's an issue with taxonomy, where 'on all four' means walking animal not literally four legs, possibly mixed with a translation/transcription error.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Agreed, we should also be careful that we're not trying to read too much into the minor details, or over-analyzing specific words chosen by the translators.
Like insects having four legs - I wouldn't consider that to be an "inaccuracy" but rather an incomplete understanding of the original reference. Given the options I consider it more likely that either "on all fours" was a colloquialism, or that they understood the description here to mean something different that what we do today, than that the writer was mistaken about how many legs an insect has.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think it is a "contortion" to think that the writer here is using language that was understood differently than how we use it today. Over the course of a few thousand years terminology is going to change. In our modern understanding we also know that whales aren't fish, but to someone living thousands of years ago it would have made perfect sense to say that a whale is a fish and that's how the audience would have likewise understood it. I think the idea that terminology is fluid makes far more sense than the idea that someone living thousands of years ago in the middle east, who more than likely ate insects as part of their diet, just had no idea how many legs they had.
Some crazy creation science sites do in fact say that the hind legs don't count, which seems like a stretch. However, amongst competent apologists there is a response to the four-legged insect debacle that I actually think is pretty good: look at the proposition expressed by the sentence in question and ask what it is actually claiming. Moses isn't giving entomology lessons here; he is making a moral claim about which bugs should and shouldn't be eaten. The only empirical data required is that he give enough information so that his people can correctly identify the kosher bugs. He doesn't actually have to get the entomology right in order to be considered truthful here.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The bible now has sections in it that, if you tried to convince the venerable Bede were in the bible, he would punch you in the mouth*.
Some of them are really quite famous. We have quite a lot of copies of the bible from various time periods, and one of the fascinating things is that the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"** isn't in any copies from before around 1100 AD, and starts creeping in over the course of about a century.
Meaning the bible was either errant in 1000 AD or is errant now.
* as was the style at the time.
** I'm pretty sure I am remembering the right story; CBF looking it up right now
Assuming you are remembering the correct story, your 1100 AD time is off by about 500-600 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery)
I'm getting the feeling that you have a different view of / understanding of what "biblical inerrancy" is than I do. Further, I'd argue that most Christian scholars assign i the same meaning as I do. That meaning being: the teachings of the Bible are inerrant. Thus, if the Bible is teaching that insects have exactly four legs, that would be an error. If, rather, the Bible is teaching that this subset of insects are Kosher -- and expresses such with sufficient clarity that a reader can unambiguously determine what is being referred to, the passage is not an error.
But, let's face it -- what we are arguing over here is an extremely minor quibble within a significantly larger document. If the only ammunition you have against biblical inerrancy is this passage you've already lost the argument in most peoples minds. Now, I don't think that's your only argument. I'm sure you have something else, something with a bit more meat to it that allows for a more in depth discussion.
Inerrant means, very simply, "incapable of being wrong." You're saying, "Yes, the Bible makes errors, but the underlying point is true." This is exactly the opposite of inerrant. Inerrant doesn't mean you sort of gesture towards the truth's general direction. Inerrant means you are infallible. For the Bible to be the Word Of God and inerrant, it must be infallible.
No, we aren't. In an argument over perfection, there is no such thing as an "extremely minor quibble." If something is wrong, it is wrong, and means that the document is fallible, not infallible.
Second, that's far from the only error the Bible has.
First of all, one only needs to point out one flaw to make the Bible fallible. That's what the definition of the word "fallible" is.
Second, it's not the only flaw. I pointed one out in the OP. And it's not the only one, but I pointed it out because it's one of the most salient seeing as how it's in the opening pages of the thing. Would you care to defend that?
The bible is replete with stories made to illustrate a point, its rife with metaphor and symbolism.
What you're saying sounds like:
Jesus said, breaking the bread "this is my body."
Fact. Jesus broke bread. The bread was clearly not his body in any physical or scientific sense. Therefore Jesus was lying on the spot. The bible is wrong.
You're citing Genesis against cosmology and evolution??
If your argument is to be convincing, you have to at least address the role of symbolism in the bible and why its necessary to be so insistent that Genesis is be interpreted scientifically, while other parts of the bible may be interpreted metaphorically.
Anywayz, if you're arguing that one can't take the bible as literally true, I think that is more than self evident from the bible itself.
Examples where the bible explicitly suggests that it is not to be taken as literally true.
Example 1:
John 3:
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. [b]“Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”[/b]
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
Example 2: John 6.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
No, bLatch is saying that the teachings of the Bible is inerrant. That is, not literally every word in the Bible is inerrant but rather the fundamental point it is trying to make.
A very different definition of the inerrancy of the Bible as believed in the early 20th century U.S., but one that can be acceptable imo.
In any case, Jesus himself supposedly used a lot of symbolism and vague talking-points. It's difficult to take his words to mean literal things. Tomcat26 addresses a couple of these. Is the bread and wine LITERALLY his flesh and blood? Or is he saying that eating them creates a covenant, a life-long bond, between you and Christ?
Ok, here's the thing, "metaphor" and "symbolism" aren't just words. They have meanings. You cannot simply say, something is a metaphor or something is a symbol, and just expect the discussion to end there. In order to say something is a metaphor or a symbol, you must demonstrate that it is a metaphor or a symbol. Specifically, you must actually demonstrate what, precisely, these things symbolize.
So demonstrate this with Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Illustrate where the symbols are, and what they mean.
Of course I am. The world was not created in one day or six days. It was created over billions of years. Nor was life created in the order either story in Genesis cites.
Except therein is the entire problem with your post: you don't just randomly assume things in the Bible are metaphors. A metaphor is something that's meant to represent something else. Therefore, you have to demonstrate that something is to be taken metaphorically by showing what, exactly, the thing that's written is symbolizing.
And the problem with Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is they are clearly not meant to be taken metaphorically.
In Genesis 1, God is said to have separated waters from waters by a dome, which is the sky. In other words, according to Genesis 1, beyond the sky, there is water. Not space, water. That's what exists beyond the sky. Now, we know this to be scientifically false. Beyond the sky is not water, it is space. There isn't some vast ocean of water outside of our atmosphere, it's space.
Someone might be quick to argue that this could be a symbol or metaphor, but the problem is twofold:
1. Metaphor for what, exactly? Something is not just randomly a metaphor. If it's a symbol for something, it must be a symbol for something. What, in this case, is that something?
2. In this particular case, the waters are definitely not metaphorical, because later God is described as parting the dome separating the waters, thus allowing the water beyond the sky in, in order to cause the Great Flood. So unless the Great Flood is a metaphor — and I think we all agree that the Great Flood narrative is clearly meant to describe a literal Great Flood — there's a huge problem with saying that the waters are metaphorical. But if they're not metaphorical, then there is in turn a huge problem because that contradicts observable fact.
Then there's Genesis 2:4-25. In Genesis 2:4-25, it is said that man was created before all the other animals. Every one. Not only does this contradict Genesis 1-2:3, which says that man was created on the sixth day, but it also contradicts basic scientific fact. Man was not created before all of the animals.
And to say that's a metaphor, again, results in the same set of problems:
1. Metaphor for what, exactly?
2. No, it's clearly not a metaphor, as the Adam and Eve narrative being literal fact is what much of Bible hinges on.
If I say that the lesson of Moby Dick is true, but that Moby Dick asserts that whales are fish, and whales are not fish, but Moby Dick is still infallible, does that make any sense?
No, it does not, because I have not only failed to prove Moby Dick to be infallible, I have proven precisely the opposite, because I have shown a thing that Moby Dick asserts to be a fact that is not a fact.
Now, that's not to say that Moby Dick contains no truth at all. It could have valuable lessons to teach us about life, and those lessons could certainly be true. The fact that something is wrong about a scientific fact does not mean it's wrong on its fundamental lesson.
The thing is, though, that's not what infallibility means. Infallibility doesn't mean that something gets most things right. Or even important things right. It doesn't mean that the moral of the stories being told are true even when a bunch of things being said are not true.
Infallibility means incapable of being wrong. Not-fallible. Something that is infallible is ALWAYS correct in everything it asserts. If something is infallible, everything put forth as a fact by that thing must be true. The veracity of every assertion made by that thing must be correct. Else it is not infallible.
So therefore, bLatch is incorrect, because that is not what the word "infallible" means. He is incorrect from a definitional standpoint.
Further, he is incorrect from an evidential standpoint. The Bible claims many things to be true that are not correct. Several have been noted here. That pi equals 3. Maybe the insect thing, although I'm not sure that's necessarily a fault as it might be a quirk of the language. The idea of the universe being created in either six days or one day.
There's also the most obvious: the assertion that the final judgment and resurrection of the dead would come within the lifetime of the followers of the original Christ movement, which, needless to say, did not happen and still hasn't almost 2,000 years later.
It's also a very different definition from what the word "inerrant" actually means. Except what TomCat26 conspicuously did not do was address the supposed metaphors in Genesis.
That's the thing about saying something is a metaphor rather than to be taken literally: you have to actually demonstrate what, precisely, the metaphor is for. Something can't be a symbol unless it symbolizes something. So what does Genesis symbolize?
And yes, it's pretty clear in context that Jesus says a lot of things that are metaphorical, in part because the books do a lot to highlight that Jesus is speaking in parable, and often outright explain exactly what he means. Therefore, we understand from the context of the narrative which things are metaphorical.
By the same token, we can understand that the events in Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken literally. The fall of Adam and Eve happened, and Adam and Eve were clearly not metaphorical people, but literal people. The creation of waters beyond the sky was not an act of metaphorical water creation, but literal water creation.
The onus is not on me to prove why Genesis should be interpreted as a series of metaphors and symbolism. But on you to explain why should we take Genesis so literally that we should use it as a series of scientific explanations against cosmology and evolution.
If you don't address this, then your argument is just weak because it doesn't address it's simplest counter. In fact, it seems more reasonable to me to not take Genesis literally.
The bible doesn't clearly state which parts are to be taken literally and which ones as symbolism. But what we do know is that the bible is filled with symbolism. God speaks symbolically to his people. He does this all the time. I mean all the time--from the lamb, the lion of Judah, the bread being the body, the blood being the wine, pieces of garment representing the twelve tribes of Israel, Elijah laying on one side of his body for about a hundred days, being born again, living water.
None of those things are literal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be at the ready to interpret pretty much any part of the bible symbolically, metaphorically, even philosophically.
In fact most of the bible is written that way. You get some history and some actual events in Exodus, kings, genesis, judges. But the minor prophets? Jeremiah? Zechariah? Isaiah? Romans? Titus? Psalms? Proverbs? Where's the story? Where's the events?
In fact, I would argue that the majority of the bible is not on events or anything concrete at all. And when it is, it dips back quite regularly into metaphor, philosophical musing, teaching, allegory, parable. All these things are there.
You would have me prove to you why I should not take Genesis literally. Just as simply I can dare you to take this section of the bible from Ecclesiastes literally.
What's the literal, scientific analysis of this? If you would rather interpret this philosophically, what makes you change now to a philosophical eye rather than a literal scientific eye?
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
or what about this?
The wicked flee though no one pursues,
but the righteous are as bold as a lion.
how do i interpret this scientifically?
He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn, your vindication like the noonday sun.
how can righteousness shine at all? Vindication has no physical luminosity! therefore the bible is wrong.
Don't just tell me that Genesis should be interpreted literally and scientifically. How am I supposed to know that highroller's interpretation is the right one--which parts to see literally which ones are not to be asserted against cosmology and evolution. You might think its self evident which ones are to be construed in which way. But I don't.
Because that's what it says on the page. It describes a six day creation, and then a one day creation.
Now, you yourself have said that this is obviously not true:
You're right, it is more than self-evident that Genesis 1 and 2 do not describe the literal truth, as they have creation stories that are clearly wrong, as they are contrary to both each other, and to science.
But you are also arguing against this proving that the Bible is fallible:
Ok, so demonstrate WHY you think this. How can you read a creation story in which everything is created in six days, and then read a creation story in which everything was created in a single day, and say, "No, this is not inaccurate," even though cosmology and biology clearly state otherwise?
How do you reconcile your belief that the Bible is infallible with the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 — at least at face value — are so at odds with reality and each other?
But that's not a counter, because you haven't demonstrated how else to interpret the passage in a way it makes sense.
You've suggested it might be interpreted metaphorically/symbolically, but you haven't stated what those symbols are, or how they make any sense with the rest of the Bible.
Answer these two questions:
1. Do you believe the Great Flood was a literal Flood, or a symbolic Flood?
2. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, or symbolic people?
Here's the deal: I don't see any reason to not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally. I think it's just fine to say they're meant to be taken literally, because I think that's the way the people from which those stories came would have interpreted it. To me, they were people telling creation stories just like any other people telling creation stories from any other ancient culture. Every culture has at least one story telling how the world was created, and none of the others were correct.
Therefore, I see no reason why this one has to be any different. Why can't the Hebrews thousands of years ago have just believed that the world was created in six days? Or one day? Why couldn't they just have made up stories to explain what they did not know? That's what every other culture did.
However, there are some people who believe that the Bible is infallible. If the Bible is infallible, then Genesis MUST be true, for it is a part of the Bible, and if the Bible is infallible, no part of it can be wrong. And since Genesis MUST be true, Genesis 1 and 2 MUST be true in turn.
Therefore, my question is very simple: HOW can Genesis be right? HOW can book that says God created the universe in six days, and then subsequently say God created the universe in one day be correct, when we know the universe was neither created in six days or one day?
If you believe Genesis to be true, please explain to me HOW it can be true. And don't say, "Well you've failed to consider the possibility of metaphor," because that's not an explanation. If you believe it to be symbolic, explain how it is symbolic. Explain your interpretation and justify why it is correct.
Several things:
First, If you look at my quote I was not responding to you. Hence my statements like "If this is the only quibble you have..." and my failure to address the example you gave in the OP were because I wasn't addressing the OP. I was addressing the specific quote.
Second, I acknowledged that there are significant issues that can be raised and need to be addressed. The "goeth on four legs" statement is not one of them.
Third, with regards to inerrancy, am I correct in understanding you as saying that in order for the Bible to be inerrant every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, and book, must be literally true, devoid of any context? Because if thats your position, of course it's not "inerrant" -- Hell, Jesus' parables weren't literally true. [b]But that is not what inerrant means[/q]. When someone says the Bible is inerrant, they are saying that the statements made by the Bible are inerrant. One must anaylize the words presented in their context to understand what the statement is.
With regards to the "goeth on four legs" context, the statement is not an entomological lesson on the biology of bugs. Rather, the statement is a statement that this classification of bugs is kosher, and the other bugs are not kosher.
Finally, I object to your overly dismissive attitude toward people with my position on what "inerrancy" means. If you want to know why I did not address your post directly you need look no further than how you phrased bullet point number 2 in your original post.
I'll have to look that one up in further detail. It could be just a quirk of the language.
Of course not.
I agree.
Why do you feel it was overly dismissive?
My attitude toward people who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God is that I find people believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God for no other reason than they were taught that this is what they were supposed to believe. I believe this because I find no evidence to point to the infallibility of the Bible, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Now, you might be the exception, bLatch. You might, as you seem to imply, actually have a well-reasoned argument for believing that the Bible is inerrant. You might have a really great reason why Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 don't contradict either each other or science. In which case, would you care to share it?
You said that you felt bigger issues needed to be raised and addressed, right? Well, bigger issue raised, would you care to address it?
Honestly? I'd prefer not to. At least not with someone who has already established that they are going to dismiss my arguments as "hand wavey".
I'm fairly certain that you are well aware of the argument that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be a literal historical text, but rather a theological essay containing "essential truths" about man's relationship to God, told in figurative language. (Wording stolen from another user on another site, not my own).
Further, this is exactly my point when I assert that what the passage is saying is inerrant, even if the specific wording chosen, then translated, then translated again, does not present a scientific truth. Within the context of the passages it does not appear that the author intended the passages to be literal scientific truth. If it is true that the intent of the author is to express correct theological ideas, and those theological ideas are correctly expressed, the passage is inerrant even if it utilizes metaphors or other incorrect poetic language.
The inerrant portion is not the minutia, it is the teachings. For the same reason that a typographical error, or a typesetting error does not render the bible no longer inerrant, utilization of metaphors and scientifically inaccurate statements within the context of a lesson does not render the lesson incorrect.
The bar you assign to inerrancy is orders of magnitude higher than what a typical Christian means when they claim the bible is inerrant, and really only fits with what hardcore evangelicals believe.
For more info: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
Magicaware hit the nail on the head when he said:
When most people say the Bible is inerrant, this is what they mean. They do not mean that the minutia of every statement outside of it's appropriate context is literal truth.
Hm, I may have confused the concept of Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism with one another, if Wiki is to be believed.
Interesting to see that people take these in such diverse ways.
Would you care to back that argument up?
Ok, well, turns out we have the Greek, and we have the Hebrew. So if you're going to claim a translation error, cite the translation error. Demonstrate where, exactly, the translation errors happened, and what the true meaning of the passage is.
If you cannot demonstrate a translation error, then the specific wording chosen can't be faulted as inaccurate or unfaithful to the original passage. And if the wording given demonstrates that the message is saying something scientifically untrue in a statement about how God created the world? Yes, that most certainly demonstrates the Bible as errant.
Justify this. It seems pretty clear that they did intend exactly that. The Sabbath is not a metaphorical seventh day, it falls on a literal seventh day. The waters beyond the sky are not metaphorical waters, they are literal ones, because the story of Noah depicts a literal Flood, and those literal waters are the same waters described in Genesis. The story of Adam and Eve depicts literal people, not figurative ones, as Adam and Eve are crucial to the rest of Torah, and in turn Christianity.
And why not apply this to every other passage? Is David a metaphor, or a real person? Is Jesus a metaphor, or a real person? John the Baptist: metaphor or literal?
See how easy this is turned back on you? Metaphor is not an arbitrary word. It's not a Get Out of Jail Free card. You have to demonstrate your interpretation of a text to be correct. You have to back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it is not "overly dismissive" to dismiss you. It is logically correct to dismiss you, because what is offered without evidence is dismissible without evidence. Freely given, freely dismissed.
No, if the passage says this is the way God created the world — which it does — and it describes something that is contrary to how the world is actually created — which science tells us — then it is wrong, and therefore not inerrant.
And if there are TWO stories that say "This is how God created the world," and they both say different things, they cannot both be right. P and not-P cannot be true. That's rudimentary logic.
And the Bible teaches how God created the world. And the Bible teaches how God created a world a second time, which is different from the first time. And they're both wrong.
That does not mean anything when the typical Christian believes that the Bible is inerrant only because they are told that the Bible is inerrant.
Alright, I'll read over this and edit my comments at the bottom.
If the Bible teaches something false, then it is not inerrant.
And if the Bible teaches that the world was created in six days, and then in one day, then the Bible is false. Six days cannot be one day, one day cannot be six days, man cannot precede the creation of animals and yet still come after them, man and woman cannot both be created after the animals and at separate times before and after animals, and none of those above are compatible with science at all.
The Bible teaches all of those things. Therefore the Bible is false.
For the Bible to be inerrant, all claims it makes must be true. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created," is about as blatant as can be.
EDIT:
Ok, bLatch, here are the problems you need to address with this article:
Except Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 AND science.
Which contradicts biology. Also, the story of how Adam and Eve were created contradicts Genesis 1.
It means EVERYTHING!
In order to accuse someone of being wrong in their belief that the Bible is inerrant you have to take *their* definition of inerrancy. If someone understands inerrancy to not require a literal scientific truth of every partial statement, then you playing gotcha games doesn't prove jack *****.
Lets try this hypo: You approach me and say "Say, bLatch, how did you get to work today?". I reply with "I drove my car". You respond by pointing to my SUV and going "A-ha! Your statement is in error! that is not a car, that is a light truck!". You have not caught me making an erroneous statement because the statement I was making was not "I drove a vehicle that is classified by the government as a 4 wheel car to get to work today". The statement I was making was "I drove my personal vehicle to work today". The question of errancy is *not* whether the minutia is correct, it is whether the statement is correct.
Likewise, if the author is writing a poetic account of creation (which by all accounts I've read, Genesis is) the statement being made is not a scientific statement with regards to how God created the world, it is a statement that he did.
Never mind the linguistic impossibility of him creating the earth in a time period defined by the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees. The statement of "days" cannot be literally true, any more than I can draw a circle with four sides in euclidean space.
This is all setting aside the stance that the first chapter is teaching creation of the world and the second chapter is teaching the creation of the Garden.
TL;DR You can't prove that my belief that the Bible is inerrant wrong by using a definition of inerrancy other than my definition of inerrancy.