Hypothetical question.

[armednfree]

We believe in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. That's a given for this discussion.


Now, if you found out definitively ( Like Jesus came and told you himself) that the story of creation with Adam and Eve is a myth and that Noah's Ark was a myth based on fact, would you still believe in biblical inerrancy?

For me the answer is yes, but what is it for you?

[wv109323]

For your question,I would answer No. I would believe Jesus's account about what happened. Peter tells us that the Word was given to them under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. That meaning the original manuscripts were inerrant. This does not mean that man has perfectly preserved and kept the Bible perfect throughout history. Do you believe that every translation of the Bible is 100% pure though translated by man? This means man can potentially be without error. Without error man could perfectly live a life without sin. Never would this be correct.
There are differences in the manuscripts and transcripts that have been settled by textual criticism. This settlement of these scriptures by man may not be absolute and 100% correct.
So if Jesus told me something (because God can not lie) I would believe that over man's recounting of the event.
But your question is an impossibility. God could not give Moses an inaccurate account of creation or the flood and let that stand in the Bible. If it was given by God it is the truth.

[armednfree]

It is true that it is the inspired word of God. But to say it is inerrant would be to say it is historically and scientifically correct. I more say the Bible is infallible in that it infallibly relays and teaches principle. If God would use myth to teach his children that would not detract from infallibility nor would it lessen the Word in any aspect.

[Thundarstick]

Either you believe the creation account, or you don't. That means either the Bible is all true, or all a lie. One could also choose the parts that are true, and should be obeyed, and disregard the parts that aren't true, and can be discarded. Most do this, and are ok with it.

[Hickok]

The Bible says what it means, and it means what is says.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

There is more than one interpretation for most of the stories in the bible. But lets just go with the first one you mention "creation with Adam and Eve", as I tend to believe a different interpretation than the Lutherans (I use Lutherans, as I grew up Lutheran and have several friends that are members of most all the synods).

So, if I were to find out that my interpretation is incorrect, due to the human translating/transliterating of the original text, then it wouldn't effect my opinion of biblical inerrancy, but if Jesus tells me that the entire story is a myth, I'd surely ask him why it's in there?
that's my thoughts.

[rl69]

If Jesus was to tell me that the story of creation and Noah was wrong I would ask about the rest of the bible

[koehn,jim]

The bible was not written by God but by man. Sometimes man does not interpret things correctly, plus the bible was written in Aramiriac spelling, and has been translated, perhaps not accurately. I believe in the 10 commandments, and God.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Someone pointed something out, if there was only one eden, and adam and eve where the first people. why does the bible mention that their children found spouses they weren't related to?

Adam and Eve weren't the first people.

Read (or re-read) Gen 1 and Gen 2

[popper]

Gen 1 & 2 parallel versions, same event. If 2 is correct, 1 doesn't make a bit of sense (not logical). Create people (male and female) then 're-create' Adam and Eve? Some Jewish tradition state Eve wasn't Adams first 'bride'.
Some people have a problem with the 'days' in Genesis, based on scientific understanding of the 'big bang' universe creation. I opt for an inclusive (& I may not be correct) assumption that 'day' is really a period of 'time' as we know it. Early history had no month or year, just seasons. For God there is no 'time' as we know it.
The 'garden' where Adam & Eve were placed (assume it is a earthly place) which is then guarded by cherubim to prevent entry - and we haven't found! - that is a dilemma. I've no clue.
Also no mention of the ice age (we know it happened) yet there is the flood. Hmm.
My perspective is the O.T. is the history of man, the Israelites and the constant battle with sin on the earth. N.T. is the solution.
My 2 centavos.

[MT Gianni]

If the Jesus came to me and gave me the test of Thomas, then told me the Bible was not wholly correct I would surely believe him. To do otherwise would be like worshiping a golden calf not the True God.

[RogerDat]

If Genesis served no other purpose than to establish Gods authorship of all creation that alone would warrant it being included and be enough to have it be considered accurate. Accurate as to substance even if not accurate as to specific narrative.

When one says "the bible" it begs the question which version? I seem to recall a translation of the older Greek texts is much shorter than the King James and of course there are differences in content or books included by different faiths. Then there are all the parts that were there until they were removed because they didn't suit the current religious leaders. There are also the parts that were not there in older copies but appear later. My resolution to this conundrum has always been to figure what is there is there because I should read it, reflect upon it, and possibly profit from that reading and reflecting. If God wanted an indisputable and infallible text it would be more effective if written on a stone monolith in every language so there would be no need to think or possibility of debate.

Interpretation is only possible because the text and available sources leave them open to interpretation. A Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim might well all view parts of the old testament differently and would certainly view the new testament differently but even among Christian sects the meanings are disputed enough to make the it certain that either God desires there to be different interpretations or all the different interpretations are incorrect except for one. In the end one has to accept that what is in a bible is what God intends to be there. If one accepts this premise then it puts the burden on man to attempt to understand why it is there. Faith exists because certainty can't be proven only believed.

If I was speaking to Jesus I think I could find something more important to discuss than Genesis. Maybe ask about Revelations or the triune nature question. Man, God, and Holy Spirit? And if 2 out of 3 then which two? How about how old is the earth and how long has man been on it? Sort of Genesis related I guess. Noah and the flood? Well ok interesting I guess but I can take that as the story of a man that did as God guided him despite the pressures of his peers, and it worked out because God was looking out for his best interests. Anyone who because of faith tried to protect a Jew during the holocaust despite pressure against doing the moral thing fits well with the story of Noah. Corrie ten Boom comes to mind. She is described as being deeply certain that she was doing what God wanted her to do.

[JimB..]

I don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant.

You may wish to consider how the authors of the books of the Bible defined “truth” in the context of their writings. I am no expert on this, so will leave you only with the idea.

[popper]

If I was speaking to Jesus I think I could find something more important to discuss than Genesis I'm 'Ivory' sure that I will not be in this body IF I ever get to talk to Jesus directly. Additionally, I won't be curious about Genesis & other books. Should I ask of God, "how does this work?" or "why did you do that?". IMHO it's way above my pay grade.

[wv109323]

St. John tells us " the Word was God" so there can be no error as the Word was originally given to man. Since
Man has had the Word it may not have been perfectly preserved and interpretated and translated.
I am not sure if our laws of nature,science and physics have been constant since and during creation. That opens up many things in the Bible that I can not explain. I must have faith to believe.

[Bigslug]

I think what the OP is effectively asking is: "If the author of a scientific paper that was widely accepted as correct came out with a new paper saying that it wasn't, or if another author came out with compellingly contradictory one, would you still continue to follow the first author's original work?"

So from there we generate some questions:

1. Is God perhaps not perfect, which is what brought him to revising prior edicts? Live for a couple billion years, you're bound to screw up in the creation of a few things - we share a planet with liberal Democrats, after all, which is a test that NOBODY should have to endure . ;-) The question then becomes trusting the source of the information - old or new. The original source material in this case is REALLY old, was written by no-one-REALLY-knows-who, interpreting the world as they saw it then, and does not necessarily stand against current, impartial, repeatable scientific scrutiny - - which happens to be running on the physics and chemistry that God himself created. This would tend to damage the notion that the dusty tome was indeed written by The Man himself.

2. Assuming God IS perfect, a "flawed" Bible could be representative of him only giving you the information you need at the proper time you need it to advance in the desired direction? This would be akin to Ben Kenobi lying to young Luke Skywalker about what happened to his dad. It's entirely possible that in order to make the seedling of the human plant grow to self-sustainability, it first had to be fertilized with a heaping load of B.S. Now that the plant has matured somewhat, its needs may have changed, and the original B.S. needs to be replaced with "nutrients" that are more sophisticated - and believable. This would make the Bible technically infallible for it's original intended purpose as a set of kid's training wheels several thousand years ago, but "Fun With Dick and Jane" may no longer be a usable guide once the species hits puberty and gains a greater understanding of the world.

Easier to accept if you ponder the nature of God as not 100% perfect or not 100% benevolent.

[RED BEAR]

i have to go with thunderstick you ether believe or you don't. at my sisters church they have group discussions about how the bibles stories not exactly how to put it but the jist is they discuss what good tales they are even though not literally true. i say that is more of a social club since they do not believe that the bible is true. the way i look at it if you don't believe in the bible or that god is real then whats the point.

[dverna]

In order for me to believe in God, I am left with two options. The first is that God is not perfect...and that is relatively easy to conclude. The second is that the content in the Bible is not perfectly reported or translated...also not a stretch.

We will know when we see Him.

Yes, I am a believer. I am no less a child of God as someone who has no doubts about the perfection of God and the Bible.

[MT Gianni]

Do those of you who believe the Bible is perfect believe the cause of most illness is demonic possession?

[Thundarstick]

No.
I believe that illness is the direct result of living in a world that God created perfect, but man corrupted by sin.

[.429&H110]

God rest ye, merry gentlemen!

Our Savior mentions a warning to us all:
Matthew 24:37-39

Thanks for the thread, was a good one...

[pmer]

If Jesus is standing in front of me as if I was Thomas and correcting accounts of the bible? Sound like a trick question. :p

[flyingmonkey35]

If Jesus is standing in front of me as if I was Thomas and correcting accounts of the bible? Sound like a trick question. :pI'd invite him to go target shooting. He strikes me as a 357 mag wheel gun type of guy.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Winger Ed.]

We believe in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. That's a given for this discussion. Now, if you found out definitively ( Like Jesus came and told you himself) that the story of creation with Adam and Eve is a myth and that Noah's Ark was a myth based on fact, would you still believe in biblical inerrancy? For me the answer is yes, but what is it for you?


I would say 'yes' too, by giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt.


The Bible is several things: A history book that as modern research goes along- they're finding out more and more of it is proving out to be true.There are parables, lessons, quotations about how to live a good life. They all seem to be quite tried & true.

It was also carried down by village story tellers for awhile before being written down, there is also some 'books' in it we don't see in our King James version. It wasn't originally compiled, told, or written down in English, where Jesus speaks in red letters either.

So, there's a chance,,, a few things got left out or more nearly misinterpreted as it went from one language to another.
Such as Jonah and the whale. It might have been a whale, as it's translated to us. Or from looking at modern whales, and fish, it might also could have been a real big grouper. If it was, that would be a mistake in the Bible, but that's not nearly enough reason to discount the whole thing.

[sniper]

I believe the Bible is the word of God, insofar as it is translated correctly. That there are many translations, interpretations and versions doesn't minimize my reverence for and belief in God and his Son, Jesus Christ.

[468]

Inerrancy, meaning that everything contained therein is absolutely true and factual? Noah’s Arc and the great flood? Jonah living in the belly of a whale? Eve being created from a rib of Adam?

[dtknowles]

I don't think the truth or fiction of the OT matters much to the teachings of Jesus. If Jesus appeared to me and told them the OT was wrong. I would ask him what I was doing wrong and what I could do better.

Tim