Question and Answer of the Week: Is the Bible inerrant?
I believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but I don't think this means I have to believe in inerrancy. The Bible isn't meant to be a textbook, and we don't need to believe in the details of the creation account, and the first man and woman in the garden, or about Jonah being swallowed by a whale. The Bible contains parables and metaphors. Do I really have believe it has to be correct in all the little details to be God's Word?Usually when people say they believe the Bible contains errors, I ask them to name those errors so we can look at them. They may raise easily answered questions such as "Where did Cain get his wife?" But usually they can't name many supposed errors, if any at all. They often take the word of other people that the Bible contains errors, without investigating for themselves. I have investigated for myself, and I am convinced that when God says all Scripture is "God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), He means that it is all accurate and reliable. When He says that "men spoke from God, as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21), He means that God was the source of their words and protected them from error.
My biggest problem with not embracing inerrancy is this: once we say the Bible contains errors, who decides what is true and what is false? A group of scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar group who cast votes on whether Jesus really said a certain thing (and decide he didn't, because as a loving person Jesus would not really say people are going to an eternal hell)? If so, then who is my real authority? Not Scripture, but these scholars. (And what is THEIR authority? Not Scripture, but themselves.)
Or do I trust my own judgment, my biases, my frail and faulty and ever-changing "knowledge," my desires and felt needs, and then conclude that because I want to leave my wife (I don't, by the way, she's terrific :), the passages restricting divorce are not really accurate, and come from the gospel writers' and Paul's restrictive conservativism, not from the loving heart of God. Or I want to live with my girlfriend, or my partner of the same gender, and I choose to believe the love and grace parts of Scripture, but not those that say such things are wrong. If I do this, then who is my real authority? Not Scripture, but myself (and "myself" is largely shaped by the current values of my culture).
Thomas Jefferson constructed a literal cut and paste Bible, that included what he liked and excluded what he didn't. (There was a great deal he didn't like—once you start cutting, where do you stop?) Who then was the authority? Not the Bible, but Thomas Jefferson.We inevitably end up like the final verse of Judges: "There was no King in Israel; and every man did what was right in his own eyes." Unless God's Word is fully trustworthy, inevitably I must rely upon myself or others to decide which parts I should trust and which I shouldn't. If some of Scripture is false, I must develop some process whereby I determine which parts are true, since truth-seekers will not wish to embrace what isn't true. Then my authority is no longer God's Word, but my own judgment in determining which parts are true and which aren't.
Failure to believe in inerrancy must logically lead to my inability to trust the Bible as authoritative. Clearly those parts which are false—I speak not of parable or metaphor, but if Scripture actually affirms historical details that are not true—cannot be authoritative. I cannot rely upon what I do not believe to be accurate. I cannot place myself under the authority of that which is historically false. I cannot build my belief system upon the sand and chaff of historical error. (See Francis Schaeffer's Genesis in Space and Time on this subject.)
If I do not believe there was a first man named Adam created from the ground, as Genesis tells me, then I cannot believe that we all sinned in Adam, etc. Neither can I believe Christ is God, since he clearly believed Adam was a real first man, and if Jesus was wrong, I cannot trust Him, nor was he the perfect sacrifice for my sins.
When I hear Christians say that Jonah really wasn't swallowed by a fish, because that's just impossible, I consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." So I guess if it wasn't true about Jonah, we don't need to believe in Christ's literal death, burial, and resurrection either. And more to the point, why should we believe Christ's claim to be the truth and speak the truth and "I and the Father are one" if he naively believed in what was false—that Jonah was actually swallowed by a fish?To believe that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a fish may seem to us a minor point—but how can it be minor if it means that Jesus was WRONG? Theologically speaking, what is at stake is not just bibliology but Christology. Failure to believe in inerrancy will lead me to believe Jesus was mistaken in implicitly trusting Scripture—which means not only that the Bible is errant, but also that the one who died for me on the cross was errant. If he was, then the whole redemptive work of God comes tumbling down like a house of cards. But if Jesus was the infallible living Word, affirming the infallible and authoritative written Word (by which I mean inerrant, for if it's errant it isn't infallible or authoritative), then redemption is not a house of cards to be blown in the wind by every passing critic. Rather, it is a chain of rock-solid historical truths involving Adam and Even, a garden, a flood, Abraham, David, Christ, a crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, and a return of Christ that is as real and certain as all of these were.
As humans we are proud, and much of the efforts to discredit Scripture come from pride. Ironically, without studying Scripture or researching the actual facts in evidence, countless believers embrace the claims of the Bible's critics. Spurgeon said the Bible no more needed his defense than a lion did. The Huguenots said of the Bible and its critics, "Hammer away ye hostile hands; your hammers break, God's anvil stands."When people claim to believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative yet do not believe it is inerrant, I know many of them are sincere, but I do think this logical inconsistency can only hang on temporarily. The person holding to it may not end up setting the Bible aside because of their belief that parts of it are not reliable, but their children and grandchildren will. Meanwhile, they trust themselves and others to sit in judgment of revealed Scripture—which, if it is breathed out from God, cannot be other than true, and if not true cannot be breathed out from God. So instead of sitting under Scripture's judgment, we set ourselves up as judges over Scripture. Not only is this inappropriate, I believe, but it also simply won't work in the long haul. It will lead to the problems of disbelief not only in the culture but also in the church.
Francis Schaeffer warned us about this thirty years ago. For those unfamiliar with Schaeffer, you can find excerpts from nearly all of his books at www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/sitemap.html
www.facebook.com/randyalcorn
www.twitter.com/randyalcorn
www.epm.org
Comments
I can say that I believe that the original scripture is inerrant. But what about the translations? Can all be inerrant and yet different?I'm not being caustic...Just an honest question. I don't know how to balance it.
Good post.I have an odd sort of a question. How do you deal with/respond to the various translations? Are they all inerrant? Or just some? Or just the originals? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything; I'm honestly curious. Thanks!
Nice article. So here's a question for you: If we believe the bible is inerrant (and I do) and we live by it, then what do you say about varying interpretations of scripture? Why do different people who all seem to be seeking truth and the practical application come up with such different beliefs? What are we to do about it? Agree to disagree, thereby protecting the unity of believers? Or if it's a serious divergence, call it heresy? I'd love to see a blog on this.God bless,Karri
I guess Christy and I were thinking the same thing! lol ;)
We all have the same question; the versions are not all equal.
I agree with Karri, how do I as a church attender speak to my pastor about this. If he cannot say that all of the Bible is the authoritative word of God let alone inerrant, how can I who has had less Bible training than him speak to these things. Is it appropriate to ask the leader of the church, his beliefs on the Bible or is there something wrong in me that wants this confirmation? I seem rather narrow minded in my approach even though I believe it is the correct one. I would love a blog on this too.Kym
Karri's is a great question. What I see is this:"Inevitably I must rely upon myself or others to decide which parts I should trust and which I shouldn't..."We *already do this* when we decide how to interpret scripture, or when we decide whose interpretation to trust. Why do I feel free to ignore so many of the stranger laws in Leviticus? Because interpretation lead me to believe they don't apply to Christians. Why don't I make women keep their heads covered in church? Because interpretation leads me to believe that prohibition was culturally conditioned.All Scripture must be interpreted, and all interpretation relies on oneself and others... and, one hopes, the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills.Maybe that's a destabilizing thought -- but it's also an empowering and exciting one. Maybe God wants us to be in constant conversation with Him *about* the Scriptures instead of assuming they're perfect and He's got nothing more to say!
Also:Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."Jonah doesn't have to be a true story to carry meaning any more than Jesus's parables do.This sentence is perfectly valid: "Like the boy who cried wolf, Bob lost credibility with each protest." An actual boy who cried wolf does not have to exist in order for such a sentence to have a true meaning.(Not to mention, if Matthew 12:40 is literally true -- did Jesus really spend three days in the earth's molten core? Or is some more literal meaning for "the heart of the earth" than that?)
I needed this post a couple weeks ago. :) I wrote a guest post--What Should We Do with the Bible?--on someone's blog and got some heat. http://blog.hafchurch.org/peter/index.php/2009/06/so-what-should-we-do-with-the-bible-guest-post-by-marla-taviano/I used the word "literal" and should have clarified. Someone mentioned that Christ said "eat my body" and we can't take that literally. So then I had to explain that yes, there are parts of the Bible that were obviously figurative, but that doesn't mean that the creation account and Jonah are analogies for something else.Anyway. :) And a couple people brought up Esau's wives (discrepancy w/their names maybe?)And good questions about different versions and people's interpretation of Scripture.
Christy and Amanda,Thanks for your honest questions. They're good ones. Here's a couple of articles from the epm.org website that touch on the questions you asked:If it's true that the English Bibles we have now have some inconsistencies, what does it matter if the 'original' manuscripts didn't? Is the King James Version the Only Good Translation? Also, here's an excerpt from a seminar John Piper gave on "Why We Believe the Bible," that directly addresses this subject:Our Greek and Hebrew versions and our translations are inerrant to the degree that they faithfully render the divine meaning that the words of the original manuscripts carried.I believe this reflects a higher (= more accurate) view of inerrancy than is reflected in saying that every translation is inerrant and that the inerrancy of the original manuscripts doesn’t matter. The reason I say this is that translations differ from each other in some matters. So to say that they are all inerrant (in spite of their differences) is to weaken the meaning of inerrancy to the point where it loses objective reality.On the other hand, to say that the inerrancy of the original manuscripts matters elevates the objective reality of inerrancy. It is a historical reality. God really did inspire the writings of the Bible so that his ideas were inerrantly carried in the words of the original manuscripts. This historical reality is an objective standard which we can approach through textual criticism. Without this conviction the contemporary versions and translations are set adrift in a sea of subjectivism with no objective standard to measure their faithfulness. Thus affirming the inerrancy of the original manuscripts is a higher, more faithful, view of inerrancy. Therefore, let us rejoice to affirm, “We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts...” Blessings,Stephanie AndersonPromotions DirectorEternal Perspective Ministrieswww.epm.org
I wholeheartedly believe that God's word is a light shining in a dark place, and we ignore it at our peril. And in its original text, it is historically accurate. However, I agree with Adam that everybody interprets the Bible. And we have definite cultural biases in favor of certain interpretations. They can be so strong that so-called Bible teaching churches completely ignore key passages. The Holy Spirit should be our primary teacher and counselor, because only he can bring the word of God to life. How can we know what God intended unless we have his Spirit within us to interpret his word?I think the Bible is full of symbolism that is spiritually discerned. And frankly, it contains factual inconsistencies. For example, the book of Ezekiel tells us in one place that cherubim have two faces and elsewhere that they have four. Well, which is it? Did Ezekiel forget to go back and proofread? I think this means that celestial beings don't have physical bodies like ours--the faces, eyes, wheels, and wings represent spiritual qualities. The Bible, like all good literature, favors the concrete rather than the abstract in communicating ideas, so in my opinion we can err by taking things too literally. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the disciples think he said it because they brought no bread. Jesus accuses them of not having faith because they took the word "leaven" literally.
Just a follow-up comment (sorry, I know my previous comment was long enough). Personally, it doesn't much matter to me how exactly God created the world. Nor do factual inconsistencies threaten my faith. All I need to understand is everything pertaining to my walk with God in faith and obedience. Therein lies my certainty of his existence, and nowhere else. Each time God has brought me to a crossroad where I have to take a step in faith, he has proven himself faithful. (Even when I fail, he demonstrates that his way would have been solid.) So let the scientists and historians do their work. As Christians, we have nothing to fear from the truth.
I'm currently reading the book, A Thomas Jefferson Eduation. I would like to read more information about Thomas Jefferson and his beliefs or disbeliefs about the bible. Most people seem to be so inclined to believe all the founding fathers had a genuine Christian faith. Where can i find out more about the comments you eluded to in your post regarding TJ?
Hi Angie,The best resource I would refer you to is an organization called WallBuilders, who focuses on America's religious history. They do have some material on Thomas Jefferson: Thomas Jefferson and Religion at the University of VirginiaSome of the materials cited in the footnotes of that article might be helpful, or WallBuilders might be able to point you towards some other helpful resources.Blessings,Stephanie AndersonEternal Perspective Ministrieswww.epm.org
I think Adam makes a great point in stating that perhaps God wishes us to interact with him over the points of the Bible - even if the original text is inerrant, and even if every translation faithfully preserves the points meant to be conveyed, language is still a very limited tool for communication. Two people who speak the same language natively, grew up in the same culture, can read the same sentence in their native language, and come up with very different interpretations of it.I don't believe that God is ignorant of this fact.I believe He is capable of communicating truth to everyone via a combination of written revelation and personal revelation. Unfortunately, in focusing completely on written revelation, we often forget that personal revelation happens, is valid, and is part of our overall experience and understanding of God.Written revelation is subject to the same interpretation issues as personal revelation, we just somehow feel it's more solid somehow because it has a lasting physical manifestation of some sort.I think we have to ask ourselves, if we trust God to communicate truth to each individual through written word, shouldn't we also trust him to communicate truth to each individual through personal revelation?
I think all the issues of inerrancy would fade away if we all used the Bible as communication from God to each of us INDIVIDUALLY -as a meditative and contemplative notebook to be used in conjunction with the Spirit and a group of trusted co-laborers for self-improvement. Where we get into trouble is when we use the Bible to clobber groups with a one-size-fits-all presentation of the "facts" as understood by the leader.
For some more resources on the inerrancy of Scripture, check out:Why We Believe the Bible, from Desiring God Bible Inerrancy, John H. Gerstner Another recommended resource is God Wrote a Book, by James MacDonald.Blessings,Stephanie AndersonEternal Perspective Ministrieswww.epm.org
