Comments on: A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 4

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:08:00 +0000

The answer to both of your questions is basically the same:
A statement/claim/proposition/allegory/metaphor/etc. (hereafter “thing”) is true if what the author of the “thing” meant by the “thing” in some way corresponds to reality. When the author says something about God having wings, we don't take it literally as if he has physical wings, but we believe the author meant that God provides shelter, protection, and comfort in a way similar to a being that does have physical wings. If God acts in this way, then the author's metaphor is true. If we have reason to believe that the author actually meant that God has physical wings, then God must have physical wings in order for it to be true.
The determining factors are 1) What the author meant and 2) What is actually the case. Wells did not mean for his story to correspond to reality (at least the plot anyway), so it does not factor into the equation. In regard to historical context, it matters what the author meant. If whoever said “life is in the blood” meant that blood is alive (or something like that), then it's false. If they meant that blood is vital to our survival, then it's true.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:03:00 +0000

“Do you have some other definition of inerrancy you think is better?”
No. I just wanted to point out the danger I see when calling allegory or symbolism “true.” Could it be that the claim of inerrancy colors how we view things? The Bible claims to be inerrant and so we seek to support that claim by allowing allegory to be “symbolically true.” Wells' book does not claim to be inerrant and so we do not try so hard to allow his allegory to be as true.
Another point for my clarification of your definition. When the Bible makes scientific statements, is it inerrant if the statement accurately represents the knowledge of the people of the time or is it inerrant if the statement is accurate by today's standards? (I don't have a specific example in mind and I'm too lazy right now to look anything up so this may not be a well posed question. I just vaguely recall something about “life is in the blood” and something about tides or waves or whatever and some say the Bible is correct in some cases and incorrect in others.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:47:00 +0000

Hi Ken,
Do you have some other definition of inerrancy you think is better? What I've offered is what I believe the Bible teaches about itself. The Bible claims to record historical people and events, as well as songs and poems and much more. It claims, for the most part, to be a non-fiction book. Fictional books cannot claim inerrancy, since truth must correspond to reality. It would be a misapplication of the term to apply inerrancy to Wells' “First Men in the Moon.” However, it's logically possible that “The First Men on the Moon” by David Harland is inerrant because it claims to tell a historical story. If it is entirely accurate and true, then it is inerrant. Many things contain truth or truths, but only those things that maintain the highest standard of utter truthfulness throughout can be considered inerrant.
My argument has only been that the Bible claims to be the inerrant, and one of those premises is that it claims to be God's Word. I have not argued here that it is in fact inerrant, nor that it is in fact God's Word. These are entirely different claims that I do not intend to address at this time. So I will not be addressing “self-authentication” any time soon since that would fall under argumentation that the Bible is in fact God's Word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:31:00 +0000

I agree there is a danger in elevating the Bible to some sort of divine status. The Bible is not God, nor a member of the Godhead. I've done no such elevation simply by using a capital “W.” Neither did I say that it is the Bible that saves us. You won't find either of those notions in anything I've ever written, and both are heretical.
I don't think using a capital “W” or not is something to really fight over, though I prefer the capitalization. The Bible is distinct from every other book ever written. God's divine inspiration communicates attributes to the Bible that no other book can claim, such as inerrancy and authority. I find that capitalizing it as God's Word is a helpful reminder of the honor I owe as a means of grace from God to His people. If it's not helpful for you- don't use it. But it's rather preposterous to accuse people of idolatry simply for capitalizing Word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:20:00 +0000

This seems to me to be a very weak definition of inerrancy. For I could even claim H.G. Wells' “First Men in the Moon” is inerrant if I cite, a la “God's wings”, it as an allegory for some real situation and therefore has real symbolic meaning. Symbolic meaning can be extracted from almost any book so is every book inerrant, by this definition?
I would also like to ask if you will be addressing the point of “self-authentication”: the Bible is the Word of God because it claims to be the Word of God. What are you using as an external reference to support the Bible's internal claims?
Thank you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:41:00 +0000

…though at secon dglance, I wish you had structured that sentance differently for fear that someone might stop reading after the words, “You're comfortable with 'slaughtering children'”…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:38:00 +0000

Whoops, just realized I may have overstated your point. I now see on a more careful reading that you did not actually say that belief in the word saves us. Sorry. I know people who believe such a thing. Please forgive my over-ambition.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:37:00 +0000

It was the capital “W” that set me off.
This is a big deal for me, so I tend to over emphasize it. The kind of Fundamentalism that I rail against at BeyondFundamentalism.net is that which elevates the scriptures to the point of being a divine entity itself.
Yes, I realize that not every scriptural use of the word “word' refers to Jesus.
But in the context of your statement, I'm not backing down. It is not belief in the word that saves us, as you say, it is belief in the Word. (Jesus, who will then enlighten us to the truth of scripture.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:40:00 +0000

As I said before, you can't read Jesus into every instance of the word “Word,” whether in the Bible or otherwise. The Bible doesn't always mean Jesus by it, I'm not sure why you insist on it. It's an inappropriate equivocation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:02:00 +0000

The Bible is not “his Word.” Jesus is. John 1:1,14