I frequently come across the argument that if Genesis 1-3 (etc) is not literally true and without factual errors (and so ruling out evolution) then this undermines the authority of bible and there is then no basis for believing anything else its contains is true either
What are your arguments for the authority of scripture that may counter such a claim?
That while multiple errors of fact in a text cast doubt on the veracity of the rest of the text, that only applies to a single text, and not a compolation of texts written by multiple authors centuries apart.
Errors in Genesis do not carry over to Malachi or Mark.
I think a lot of that depends on what people mean when they say things like âfactual errorsâ and âauthority of the Bible.â
Why would a collection of writings that are thousands of years old be expected to align perfectly with modern scientific thought at the same particular place and time that we just so happen to be alive? In some ways, that mindset is just our own âmain character syndromeâ point of view asserting that scripture must align with our current understanding of science. I donât see why it should be expected to do that. If we want to try to understand Genesis, we have to be willing to read it in context, which means letting go of some of our assumptions about how the text must be used.
For example, scholar John Walton asserts that the Genesis creation story is more about functions than materials, because that is more in line with Ancient Near East stories of the same time. To try to force it to be otherwise is âcultural imperialismâ in his words. âThe Lost World of Genesis Oneâ is a great read if you want to learn more about that.
From ChatGPT: âHereâs a compact toolbox you can use on BioLogos (pick what fits your lane):
Genre & intention
Authority attaches to what the text intends to do. Genesis 1â3 uses temple/cosmic-kingdom imagery and archetypal language; it teaches who God is, who we are, and why the world is brokenânot lab physics. Genre-faithfulness â error.
Infallibility vs. inerrancy (scope-limited)
Many Christians hold that Scripture is infallible for faith and practice: it unfailingly accomplishes Godâs saving purposes, even while speaking pre-scientifically. Truthfulness is measured by purpose, not by modern scientific precision.
Divine accommodation
God speaks baby-talk to finite cultures (Calvin). Using ancient cosmology to convey timeless theological truth is accommodation, not falsehood.
Christological center (âcanon within the canonâ)
Jesus is the clearest revelation (Heb 1:1â3). The whole canon is read from and toward Christ; its authority stands because it reliably leads to him, not because every sentence is a science statement.
Rule of Faith & ecclesial reception
The Church recognized this canon because it coheres with the apostolic proclamation. Authority is covenantal and communal, not dependent on a modern literalist criterion.
Progressive revelation
Scriptureâs truth unfolds across time. Early chapters are seed-form; later Scripture (especially in Christ) clarifies the meaning. Development isnât defect.
Coherence & convergence
The Bibleâs grand narrativeâcreation, fall, Israel, Christ, new creationâhangs together across genres and centuries. That deep coherence is a mark of authority independent of scientific concordism.
Resurrection-anchored trust
Christian confidence is historically moored in Jesusâ life, death, and resurrection. If that center holds, peripheral genre questions donât topple authority.
Transformative fruit & lived reliability
The Spirit uses Scripture to create, correct, and sustain the church (2 Tim 3:16â17). Its authority is evidenced by its ongoing power to shape holy communities.
False dilemma exposed
âIf Genesis isnât literal science, nothing is trustworthyâ confuses mode of discourse with truthfulness. Poetry can be true; parable can be binding; apocalyptic can be authoritative.
I donât think scriptural authority stands or falls on reading Genesis 1â3 as modern science. Authority rests on Godâs self-revelation through inspired authors, whose aim in those chapters is theological: God is Creator, humans bear his image, creation is ordered and good, sin fractures shalom. That message comes to us in ancient Near Eastern idiomâexactly the sort of âaccommodationâ weâd expect if God speaks to real cultures.
Christ is the canonâs center (Heb 1:1â3). We trust Scripture because it reliably leads us to him and forms the church, not because every passage uses contemporary scientific categories. The church has long distinguished infallibility for faith and practice from a wooden scientific concordism; genres matter. Poetry, parable, and apocalyptic are authoritative on what they mean to teach.
Finally, the heart of Christian confidence is the gospel eventsâJesusâ life, death, and resurrectionâwhich anchor the story Scripture tells. If that center holds, then reading Genesis according to its literary form doesnât undermine authority; it honors it. The real false dilemma is thinking âliteral science or bust.â Scripture is true on its own termsâand those terms are the ones God chose.â
Simple: that scripture makes no such claim, therefore the claim has no authority.
To expand, if scripture makes no such claim then the claim is being drawn from somewhere else. If scripture is the final authority, then that âsomewhere elseâ cannot have authority over it. QED, the claim fails.
Even when read literally (a reading that scripture does not impose or even recommend), the scripture cannot be used to support such a claim. The claim does not fall within the worldview of scripture no matter how it is read, and is thus invalid.
Yes. The assumption ignores a foundational aspect of worldview: what is the definition of âtruthâ? If it cannot be shown that the Bibleâs definition evidently includes âscientific and historical accuracyâ, then those cannot be included in its definition of truth. Ergo, imposing them is an unbiblical worldview.
Itâs also more in line with how the Hebrew word for âgoodâ is used, along with its cognates in other ANE languages.
Amen!
Fundamentalists should be required to read and understand Karl Barth.
Because that isnât derived from scripture â itâs a definition of âtruthâ from a different worldview.
The authenticity of scripture carries across its entirety simply because all of the books of the Bible exist for a single purpose and a single themeâŚthe creation, fall, salvation, and redemption of mankind and the world back to its former glory.
To say that the first part is myth, allegory, metaphorâŚthat means that the rest of it is pointless!
Christs crucifixion becomes nothing more than a single mans attempt at convincing a group of followers he was God, that he could perform magic tricks/miracles (not unlike the Egyptian magicians did with their staffs in front of Aaron and Moses in about1450 BC), that he died on the cross to save us from sinâŚsin that was born out of a ancient Mosaic myth!
I have said this many times before,
If Genesis chapters 1-11 arent real history,
Mankind wasnt in Egypt nor recieved the 10 commandments
Christs PHSYICAL death on the cross becomes absolutely pointless as a man claiming to be God doesnt need to physically atone for an allegory! (there is absolutely no supportable theological way to reconcile that huge huge dilemma)
Now for the historical issueâŚ
We can prove well beyond the balance of probabilities now, with an overwhelming amount of historical evidence, that it Moses really existed, the Exodus really happened, Amenhotep was sent numerous letters from rulers all over canaan (about 300 diplomatic letters where quite a number of them relate to the Habiru attacking various cities in Canaan), pleading for his help is stopping the Habiru from raiding and taking over their cities!
These tablets shed much light on Egyptian relations with Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Canaan, and Alashiya (Cyprus) as well as relations with the Mitanni, and the Hittites. The letters have been important in establishing both the history and the chronology of the period. Letters from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil I, anchor the timeframe of Akhenatenâs reign to the mid-14th century BC. They also contain the first mention of a Near Eastern group known as the Habiru , whose possible connection with the Hebrewsâdue to the similarity of the words and their geographic locationâremains debated. Other rulers involved in the letters include Tushratta of Mitanni, Libâayu of Shechem, Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, and the quarrelsome king, Rib-Hadda, of Byblos, who, in over 58 letters, continuously pleads for Egyptian military help. Specifically, the letters include requests for military help in the north against Hittite invaders, and in the south to fight against the Habiru.[17]
I can also quite comprehensively show in historical timeline that the city of Jerusalem, formerly owned by the Jebusites, was originally settled by descendants of Eber (Noahs Great Grandson)
So we have Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Selah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, TerahâŚthen Abraham
Because Jerusalem was formerly inhabited by Eberrites (sons of Eber), we have historical fact to within just 3 generations of Noah! (my own grandmother lived into her 90âsâŚshe had a number of great great grandchildrenâŚso this fits even within our life expectancy statistics)
BTW, Eber is also referenced in the New Testament⌠Heber/Eber (áżÎβξĎ/áźÎ˛ÎľĎ) in Luke 3:35
Also, 13th Century Muslim historian Abu Al-Fida relates a story about Eber refusing to help with the building of the Tower of Babel
To say that is all metaphoricalâŚimpossible as the archeological and historical evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of Eber being a real manâŚa man who existed at the same time as his great grandfather Shem!
So to say that Noah didnt exist, that the flood never happened given the above (which is only a fraction of the available evidence), the evidence is totally against such a viewâŚits just absurd to academically try to support that view these days.
I know there are a lot of people here who dissagree with me on that, however, i note that those individuals refuse to even look at the real evidence such as that aboveâŚthey also refuse to accept that sholars now date the Exodus and wanderings 1400-1446 BC âŚthey must stick rigidly with 1200BC of later simply because there is no evidence from the 1200âs or later and that fits with the secular atheistic narrative that the Exodus and the Flood were both mythological/allegorical whatever.
You got it.
Apart from the miracles. A miracleâs a miracle. Proves the supernatural. Unless youâre saying that in the three and a half thousand year ago set fantasy, written down a thousand years later, misdirection and APES* fully applied in Pharaohâs court?
*Altered states of perception. Peer pressure. Enhanced expectation. Suggestibility.
but it wasnt written a thousand years laterâŚthe Egyptian letters to Amenhotep date to around late 1300âs to1400BCâŚthats exactly the same time when the Israelites invaded Canaan and its a direct support for the Biblical chronology (but those tablets are Egyptian artefactsâŚnot biblical ones)
Those tablets we have them in Museums âŚyou can go and look at them!
What about them?
they prove the Israelite conquest of Canaan was no fairytale and concur with Biblical accountâŚeven the biblical time period.
We should also not forget that middle 14th century BC is 1350âs BC, so the timelines align very closely
Oh James Cameron (movie director) helped make a doco about some of the above.
Thatâs nice. What do the Tell Amarna letters say about the Exodus?
That is easily refuted by noting that there is no consensus regarding the books that comprise the bible.
The rest of your post is completely irrelevant.
Thatâll be absolutely nothing then.
1360-30 BCE
They are pre-Hebrew Canaanite-Mesopotamian cuneiform. Not Egyptian. Sent to Egyptians.
800 years after(!) the Exodus fantasy, set a century earlier appears.
Ooh ouch!
You are claiming that the world is no longer as God made or willed it.
Is that because Man is more powerful than God?
Do you really think that God is incapable of coping wth the human beings He created? The lunatics are running the asylum!
I think you need to reassess the meaning and necessity of the Passion.
Richard
Yes, but there is 1500 years of Egyptian dynastic history preceding Amenhotep III, and a long period of settlement and civilization prior to the uniting of upper and lower Egypt. Eyewitness history tells us there was no global deluge over that time.
I completely concur with this Terry
Only to the literarily deficient.
Not if you actually read the âmyth, allegory, metaphorâ that preceded it.
Only if you have a preschool understanding of how literature works.
To be consistent, you would have to believe that Jesus didnât make up parables, He was using historical examples â but even that doesnât require that ancient literature be forced to conform to the YEC unbiblical worldview.
Only if you donât understand how historical evidence works and canât grasp that sunrise comes before noon.
Why do you insist on attacking strawman positions?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
