This isn’t a problem for inerrancy at all nor should it bother the Christian. There are other examples but these are just a few. You’ll see Paul using ancient Greek poetry and philosophy as well. Enjoy.
1. Book of Jasher Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18
2. Book of Wars of Jehovah Num 21:14
3. Laws of Samuel 1 Sam 10:25
4. Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
5. Chronicles of Kings of Judah 1 Kings 15:7, 23
6. Chronicles of Kings of Israel 2 Kings 14:15, 28
7. Annals of King David 1 Chr 27:24
8. Histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer 1 Chr 29:29
9. Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chr 9:29
10. History of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chr 12:15, 13:22
11. Book of Jehu 2 Chr 20:34
12. Sayings of the Seers 2 Chr 33:19
13. Book of Enoch Jude 14
May 3, 2012 at 21:22
How come I never see other comments on this blog? I’m starting to feel a little self-conscious, like you held a party and I’m the only guest, and we’re having awkward small talk.
It’s very interesting stuff, even for a … well, I won’t say “nonbeliever” exactly, but let’s say an empiricist. Anyone want to say I’m “just as faith-based” as a christian, go ahead. If it doesn’t register on instruments (including my senses and my brain), then I feel OK about ignoring it.
Anyway, as usual, fascinating content, with that odd salute to inerrantists. Of course this isn’t a problem for inerrancy. Nothing is a problem for inerrancy. The only thing that would be a problem for inerrancy is finding that something in the text isn’t true. But, once you accept inerrancy, you can’t do that. You have to rework it so it’s not a problem. After all, we’re not dealing with a “theory” of science, where you are encouraged to look for falsifying data. By definition, there can be no falsifying data for an inerrantist. That would make you an errantist (which is, I guess, what I am!)
Maybe I’ve come to believe that because of what I’ve read of ID/Creationism (yes, including their own writing), and maybe it’s because of geography – I’ve always lived in big coastal cities, never in what some are pleased to call the “Real” America (though I always felt that there was no realer America than Manhattan; especially the subway).
Even when I’ve run into the occasional sophisticated Evangelical Christian (such as a Protestant chaplain at Harvard) they took great care to distance themselves from young-Earth creationists as a “minority” and “not representative”. But the only way you can avoid young-Earthism is by careful retranslation of “day”, particularly before the Sun was created. Of course then, where do you get the energy?
So, thanks for the list.
May 4, 2012 at 22:07
One one interpretation, the sun was already created in verse 1 as part of the heavens and earth. The light on verse 3 was simply (or not so simply) the dispersal of the debris cloud surrounding the early earth that allowed sunlight to shine to the surface of the earth for the first time.
May 4, 2012 at 08:58
Hey Max,
Thanks for the list. I’ve thought about putting these together in the past, but have never got around to it.
Demiurge,
I’ve gotta say that your response was quite all over the place, but let me take a few moments to attempt to respond:
1. Do you have any rational justification for your empiricism? Please don’t say it “just works,” because that shows you are a pragmatist and not an empiricist, nor a logical deduction to show that you are truly a rationalist. Give me an empirical justification, because I’d love to see someone actually pull this off. Seriously, I’d love it demonstrated.
2. I think the salute to inerrantists is well played. The thinking usually goes like this, “If the Bible quotes from texts that aren’t inspired, then maybe it’s not inspired either.” Of course, that’s clearly a non-sequitor, but many people don’t realize it.
3. Inerrancy is easily falsifiable. Show us a real error. Biblical criticism has tried for a few hundred years now, but keep coming up empty. Please give us something good, and not something that only seems like an error given an errantist presupposition. We are Christians and like a good challenge.
4. Science may encourage falsification (well minus the string theorists and some in evolutionary biology), but atheistic metascience (metaphysics) boldly discourages it. Reading the literature on naturalism over the past fifty years will make you go insane at the lack of falsification. Originally, it was basically physicalism. Then, after a mountain of critique, it became all physical things and anything that has a physical origin. After more critique it basically became any natural system without a Supreme Being, whether or not “extra-physical” things exist. Some recent accounts have even tried to embrace god concepts into a naturalism. The term “naturalism” hardly has any meaning at this point.
You might look at getting the Oxford University Press book by Thomas Nagel coming out this fall. He’s one of the most respected atheist philosophers in the world and teaches at one of the top philosophy departments (NYU). The title of the book is titled “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.” He remains an atheist, but can’t make logical sense of naturalism at this point in his career after studying it for the past forty years. It should be an interesting read, but being OUP it will probably be expensive.
5. Which chaplain did you meet at Harvard?
6. I hold to a rabbinically historical reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, which allows for any age of the earth and does not require changing the meaning of “day.” It does require Hebrew knowledge of the difference between bar’a and ‘asah, as well as in depths discussions of ber’eshit (as it is used canonically in particular). You can see a basic outline of the idea here (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Sailhamer_Gen1_TJ.pdf), but should read Sailhamer’s more complete and recent work for more in depth study.
May 4, 2012 at 11:15
Re: Paul and his use of Greek poetry and philosophy — that passage in Acts shows just how the apologist can use the things non-Christians are familiar with to introduce an intelligent discussion on the topic of God.
Can you tell me if we have anything of these texts around today at all?
Thanks very much!
May 5, 2012 at 00:15
I’m sure we do but I couldn’t tell you exactly where to find it besides some online searches that can point you to where you can get it.
May 8, 2012 at 01:40
Dear Demi,
If the central question is the truth of the Christian faith I think this discussion of innerency is important but bit missleading.As Paul says in 1st Cor 15, the resurrection is the key issue. I think this has an answer that should satisfy an empiricist. If the eyewitness accounts are sufficiently good, as I think they are, that should suffice. After all you dont have to do every past science expierment youself. You can take anothers word for it. Sometimes scientists fabricate but its usually for motive-fame or fortune. Jesus followerrs were not seeking either.
Trackbacks
May 6, 2012 at 14:44
May 24, 2012 at 09:15