On Inerrancy and Infallibility
August 7th, 2007 by E. I. Sanchez
The Bible has inconsistencies, typographical errors, and intentional additions. To call it inerrant, infallible or inspired is misleading because, when presented with these issues, people are quick to reply: “inspired, infallible, and inerrant apply to the original autographs, not your English Bible.” And so we are quick to nod, “oh yeah, that makes sense!”
What about the Autographs?
But when you think about it, how meaningful is to call the autographs inspired, infallible, and inerrant when we don’t have them? The prophets, Paul, Peter and Jesus speak highly of the Scriptures (‘God inspired’, ‘thus says the Lord’) but we don’t have those. Not only that, Paul explicitly identifies his own words from those of God (1 Corinthians 7:12). If we ever found an autograph and found errors in it, would we be quick to point out: well, the greeting, details in between and closings in the epistles were not inspired. Only the actual teachings were and only God knows what is inspired.
27,000+ Documents Can Get Us Back to Original Text
Granted, scholars (even ex-Christian Prof. Bart Ehrman) agree that we can get back to the original text by studying the 27,000+ manuscripts we have. But still, that wouldn’t be considered an autograph so “inspired, infallible, and inerrant” is still meaningless theological jargon when it comes to our scriptures or current Bible.
The Bible Has Difficulties
The inconsistencies and typographical errors are real. Many people, and especially Bible scholars, are well aware of them. Consider the following:
- Was the Number of Revelation’s beast: 666 or 616? The earliest 3rd Century manuscripts say: 616 (Strobel, 90). What does your Bible say?
- Was Peter’s mother healed before or after Peter was called to be a disciple? (Honzo)
- What day and at what time was Jesus crucified? (Ibid).
- Was David Killed by Goliath or by Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite (Mattison)?
- How many charioteers were killed by David, 700 or 7000? (carm.org)
It is also important to note that, besides the scribes’ errors, we have intentional additions to the text (e.g. scriptures). Consider these:
- The Woman Caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11)
- The ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
- The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8)
Are you an Inerrantist?
Are you still willing to call your Bible Inspired, Inerrant, and Infallible? If not, what about the 27,000+ manuscripts, are they inspired, inerrant, or infallible? If not, what shall we say then? Let’s burn our Bibles? No, of course not. They are still our guides, our canon, our standard of orthodoxy.
As to the intentional additions, scholars have known about them for years. It is only us, the little people, who are clueless about them unless we read the fine print in our Bibles which assumes we actually read our Bibles. Big Assumption! It is also important to say that, even with these changes and the thousands (200,000 to 400,000) of text variations (Strobel, 70), the story remains unchanged: Jesus is Lord. Hell is real, and God is love.
Don't Use Theological Jargon
So my problem is not with the copyists’ errors, or the intentional additions to the text of the Bible. My problem is with the use of Theological Jargon used in doctrinal statements. Why do we complicate things? Why can we keep it simple?
To summarize: The Bible is not God. Nor does it claim to be God. The Bible didn’t hang on the Cross. Jesus did. The Bible texts are reliable in what they tell us about God and his work in history. As a historical account, it is the best attested text of ancient history. Secular findings in history and anthropology confirm the Bible story. Thus, the Bible is our authority in all matters of faith and practice and the historical Jesus. To call it inerrant or infallible is misleading. God doesn’t need the Bible to reach you or save you, or tell you about himself. Dr. Wallace asks, “before the New Testament was written, how did people come to faith in Christ?” The answer is simple:
‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)'
I truly believe that God has protected his inspired words to reach us but it is obvious that the text is not textually pure. That is, the concepts are pure but not the texts. What we hold in our hands is not inerrant or infallible. What we hold in our hearts and minds is.
Let me have your thoughts!
Update:
I just found a 2006 article in which Dr. Wallace deals on whether or not we can call the autographs “Inerrant”. Basically answering: how can we claim to have an inerrant original text when we don't even have the original text: Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament: Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View.
References
- Carm.org. http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/difficulties.htm
- Imler, Honzo. http://www.MassTheology.com
- Mattison, Mark M. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/inerrant.html
- Mejia, Jairo. Process of inspiration. Step 86. http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/chapt57.htm
- Strobel, Lee. The Case For the Real Jesus. September, 2007.
- Wallace, Daniel B. My Take on Inerrancy
- Bruce, F. F., J. I. Packer, Philip Comfort, Carl F. H. Henry. The Origin Of the Bible. 1992.
Permalink38 comments
E.I.,
I like what you have written up here. It holds up God is realistic towards what we have as a text today.
I like what you have written up here. It holds up God is realistic towards what we have as a text today.
08/08/07 @ 13:34
Comment from: Dan [Member] 
Food for thought from the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy:
"F. Inerrancy and Authority
In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at that casual, inadvertent and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.
We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasoning and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.
We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified.
Amen and Amen."
"F. Inerrancy and Authority
In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at that casual, inadvertent and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.
We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasoning and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.
We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified.
Amen and Amen."
08/08/07 @ 20:24
Lots of good points here, Edgar. I think we should be candid about Bible difficulties yet show the many reasons we have to be confident in the texts.
08/09/07 @ 06:11
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
Hi Neil,
I like the way you summarized it:
"be candid about Bible difficulties yet show the many reasons we have to be confident in the texts."
I would consider the Chicago Statement to be "Theological Jargon". Unless you are really interested, you're not going to read it, and even if you did, you'll be lost. Your one liner is so much better.
I like the way you summarized it:
"be candid about Bible difficulties yet show the many reasons we have to be confident in the texts."
I would consider the Chicago Statement to be "Theological Jargon". Unless you are really interested, you're not going to read it, and even if you did, you'll be lost. Your one liner is so much better.
08/09/07 @ 18:33
Comment from: Dan [Member]
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
Egger, since Scripture claims to be God-breathed, are you saying God intentionally "breathed" error into the autographs? Or, did God try to get His point across and the authors screwed it up? In what sense did God breathe the Scripture?
Not possessing the autographs does not make the determination of inerrancy impossible. I don't have Jesus directly in front of me either. Does that mean I can't make definitive claims about Him? Of course not. I know from other evidence certain facts about Jesus, just as I know from other evidence certain facts about the Biblical autographs. I could argue that the Bible I possess is over 99% pure from a textual-critical standpoint. I have never directly seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted Jesus. Indirect evidence tells me many things about both the Bible and Jesus. Why do I need direct evidence, i.e., the original manuscripts or Jesus directly in front of me, to make a determination?
Jargon facilitates communication. We should use it with people who udnerstand it. Using jargon saves time and eliminates the need for long speeches and articles. That's why people develop jargon. Nevertheless, I agree with you Edgar that among non-Christians, we should attempt to communicate as effectively as possible. Words carying theological freight such as "inerrant" and "infallible" discourage people these days. Let's face it, very few people will make a sincere attempt to understand what those words mean.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
Egger, since Scripture claims to be God-breathed, are you saying God intentionally "breathed" error into the autographs? Or, did God try to get His point across and the authors screwed it up? In what sense did God breathe the Scripture?
Not possessing the autographs does not make the determination of inerrancy impossible. I don't have Jesus directly in front of me either. Does that mean I can't make definitive claims about Him? Of course not. I know from other evidence certain facts about Jesus, just as I know from other evidence certain facts about the Biblical autographs. I could argue that the Bible I possess is over 99% pure from a textual-critical standpoint. I have never directly seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted Jesus. Indirect evidence tells me many things about both the Bible and Jesus. Why do I need direct evidence, i.e., the original manuscripts or Jesus directly in front of me, to make a determination?
Jargon facilitates communication. We should use it with people who udnerstand it. Using jargon saves time and eliminates the need for long speeches and articles. That's why people develop jargon. Nevertheless, I agree with you Edgar that among non-Christians, we should attempt to communicate as effectively as possible. Words carying theological freight such as "inerrant" and "infallible" discourage people these days. Let's face it, very few people will make a sincere attempt to understand what those words mean.
08/10/07 @ 17:36
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
Dan,
equip.org, rzim.org, str.org, leaderu.com and the Chicago Statement have no mention of the issues mentioned on this post. It is frustrating. They really set us (baby Christians) up for failure in defending the faith which we look up to them to help us with.
Your rhetorical questions are so much clearer than all of their statements put together. That is, if Paul is saying the Scriptures (autographs) are inspired by God, obviously they can't contain mistakes. So I would agree with you on this point. Yet the problem is that we don't have the autographs and the Timothy verse may be man made. I know this is conspiracy theory stuff but "it could be".
Dr. Wallace and other scholars tell us that the Autographs are somewhere in those 27K+ documents. And through the science of Textual Analysis, we can get at 99.5% of the original New Testament Text. Great! But maybe, and just maybe, that Timothy Quote might be part of the .5% that is not reliable. Right? Possibly? What about the other verses that say Scripture comes from God? Well, we could also point to the .5%
So our conversations about the NT should start with Neil's advice:
"we should be candid about Bible difficulties yet show the many reasons we have to be confident in the texts." This should be all Christians’ Inerrancy Statement.
Finally, I hold my Bible to be my final authority for all things regarding my Christian life. The .5% does not affect the Bible’s Systematic Theology.
Inspired by God:
John 10:35
Acts 4:24-25
1 Thessalonians 2:13
1 Corinthians 2:11-13
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 1:20-21:
equip.org, rzim.org, str.org, leaderu.com and the Chicago Statement have no mention of the issues mentioned on this post. It is frustrating. They really set us (baby Christians) up for failure in defending the faith which we look up to them to help us with.
Your rhetorical questions are so much clearer than all of their statements put together. That is, if Paul is saying the Scriptures (autographs) are inspired by God, obviously they can't contain mistakes. So I would agree with you on this point. Yet the problem is that we don't have the autographs and the Timothy verse may be man made. I know this is conspiracy theory stuff but "it could be".
Dr. Wallace and other scholars tell us that the Autographs are somewhere in those 27K+ documents. And through the science of Textual Analysis, we can get at 99.5% of the original New Testament Text. Great! But maybe, and just maybe, that Timothy Quote might be part of the .5% that is not reliable. Right? Possibly? What about the other verses that say Scripture comes from God? Well, we could also point to the .5%
So our conversations about the NT should start with Neil's advice:
"we should be candid about Bible difficulties yet show the many reasons we have to be confident in the texts." This should be all Christians’ Inerrancy Statement.
Finally, I hold my Bible to be my final authority for all things regarding my Christian life. The .5% does not affect the Bible’s Systematic Theology.
Inspired by God:
John 10:35
Acts 4:24-25
1 Thessalonians 2:13
1 Corinthians 2:11-13
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 1:20-21:
08/10/07 @ 21:25
Comment from: Dan [Member]
E, you make a great point about new Christians being unprepared for Bible difficulties. They should be discussed in church, whether from the pulpit or otherwise, especially to young Christians. I keep hearing statistics about 75% of high-schoolers leaving the church and never coming back. I think as more and more go to university, they encounter sophisticated attacks on the faith, and they buy into those attacks becuase they haven't been fed intellectually in church. They should hear about Bible difficulties and be prepared to deal with them.
08/11/07 @ 08:31
Don't mess with Chicago - or you will feel its follower's wrath! (JOKE)
I really think that EI is dead on with Chicago helping to create the impression of the perfect record as we have it now. Furthermore, it aids in creating the false impression that the texts were just written as if God itself dictated it to the writers.
When this impression is perpetuated and then shattered when the issues are examined closely, it can lead to the shattering of one's faith. I have seen it happen in more than a few of my friends.
The synoptic problem has caused a great many of people to question the reliability of the Gospels.
Something that I do not think is addressed here, but that keeps me up at night, is the list of books in the canon. I just do not know enough as to the selection process. While I trust in it, there is a hole there - how do we know that God made sure they got the list right?
Dan - agree with you that jargon is helpful - it is extremely helpful. However, like any tool, it can be abused, misused, and understood - as I think you allude to above. That propensity towards misuse is what EI is talking about above. I just hate to see people splitting fellowship over jargon.
If a text has undergone an editorial process, at what point does the text become inspired? In the 2nd Letter to the Corinthians there are obvious signs of an editorial process. It looks like there were several letters that were stitched together to form the book that we have now. Were all of the original letters inspired? Were they only inspired when edited together? If it is case one, then does that mean we are missing part of God's intended word?
I really think that EI is dead on with Chicago helping to create the impression of the perfect record as we have it now. Furthermore, it aids in creating the false impression that the texts were just written as if God itself dictated it to the writers.
When this impression is perpetuated and then shattered when the issues are examined closely, it can lead to the shattering of one's faith. I have seen it happen in more than a few of my friends.
The synoptic problem has caused a great many of people to question the reliability of the Gospels.
Something that I do not think is addressed here, but that keeps me up at night, is the list of books in the canon. I just do not know enough as to the selection process. While I trust in it, there is a hole there - how do we know that God made sure they got the list right?
Dan - agree with you that jargon is helpful - it is extremely helpful. However, like any tool, it can be abused, misused, and understood - as I think you allude to above. That propensity towards misuse is what EI is talking about above. I just hate to see people splitting fellowship over jargon.
If a text has undergone an editorial process, at what point does the text become inspired? In the 2nd Letter to the Corinthians there are obvious signs of an editorial process. It looks like there were several letters that were stitched together to form the book that we have now. Were all of the original letters inspired? Were they only inspired when edited together? If it is case one, then does that mean we are missing part of God's intended word?
08/14/07 @ 11:04
"To summarize: The Bible is not God. Nor does it claim to be God. The Bible didn’t hang on the Cross. Jesus did. The Bible texts are reliable in what they tell us about God and his work in history."
That terrible statement is in direct contradiction with John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was God..." I must dissent from this post and all of the prior comments. The Bible is very clear, on its own terms, that it has been perfectly preserved. It is a matter of faith. The only question is which translations are most accurate in any given language. It is my personal conviction that the KJV is the most accurate English translation. It was formed at the height of the English language and translated from the traditionally accepted received Scriptural texts (or Textus Receptus).
It is the other, newer English translations (NIV, etc.) that rely on nontraditional texts that raise doubt with prominent inconsistencies. And if we cannot be sure that we hold the entire Word of God---you might as well be asking why you're not a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or even an Atheist. It's Satan's oldest trick in the "Book"---literally: "Hath God said?" (Genesis 3:1)
Thus far, this entire discussion has been nothing more than a shameful display of faith "tossed" about. (James 1:6) You cannot possibly fight in the spiritual warfare mentioned in Ephesians without "taking the shield of faith . . . . and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" if you have no Biblical conviction upon the matter.
That terrible statement is in direct contradiction with John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was God..." I must dissent from this post and all of the prior comments. The Bible is very clear, on its own terms, that it has been perfectly preserved. It is a matter of faith. The only question is which translations are most accurate in any given language. It is my personal conviction that the KJV is the most accurate English translation. It was formed at the height of the English language and translated from the traditionally accepted received Scriptural texts (or Textus Receptus).
It is the other, newer English translations (NIV, etc.) that rely on nontraditional texts that raise doubt with prominent inconsistencies. And if we cannot be sure that we hold the entire Word of God---you might as well be asking why you're not a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or even an Atheist. It's Satan's oldest trick in the "Book"---literally: "Hath God said?" (Genesis 3:1)
Thus far, this entire discussion has been nothing more than a shameful display of faith "tossed" about. (James 1:6) You cannot possibly fight in the spiritual warfare mentioned in Ephesians without "taking the shield of faith . . . . and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" if you have no Biblical conviction upon the matter.
08/14/07 @ 14:04
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
Old Ford Road,
Thanks for the comment. I would be interested in reading your response to the difficulties listed on this post. Are they on your King James Bible? Perhaps you can blog on them at your site.
I'm definitely committed to God and the Bible. I'm just studying these issues in light of 1 Peter 3:15:
"sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
Thanks for the comment. I would be interested in reading your response to the difficulties listed on this post. Are they on your King James Bible? Perhaps you can blog on them at your site.
I'm definitely committed to God and the Bible. I'm just studying these issues in light of 1 Peter 3:15:
"sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
08/14/07 @ 18:59
a side note on jargon:
When I go to teach people about theological positions, esp. teaching people about what other denominations believe, theological jargon has been the greatest hindrance. People have been much more willing to accept a believe or practice when they encounter it in plainspoken terms. Maybe this is a middle of the country thing, I am not sure.
Old Ford Road,
Are you saying that Jesus is the Bible? Is that what you are equating? John was talking about the Greek concept of logos, not about any actual text in particular. Not to mention that while most of the books and letters had been written, the Gospel of John itself and at least the Apocalypse of John had not been composed. To what written word was John referring? I don't see any warrant at all to equate John's description and depiction of Jesus to the Bible, which was not collected as a single unit until 300 years later.
I can understand a fondness for the KJV. Especially when it comes to poetry, the translation exhibits a certain literary flair. However, then there are the rest of the passages. Do you use the KJV or the NKJV? Where does it stop for you? Why would you want to exclude better source material? I can understand a preference for one translation over another, what I have a hard time understanding is sweeping away all other translations. The great thing about the King James was that it was written in the vernacular of the people of its time. That was the great thing about the Vulgate (despite its textual issues). Once the vernacular of the people changes, a translation looses its effectiveness and an update is needed.
When I go to teach people about theological positions, esp. teaching people about what other denominations believe, theological jargon has been the greatest hindrance. People have been much more willing to accept a believe or practice when they encounter it in plainspoken terms. Maybe this is a middle of the country thing, I am not sure.
Old Ford Road,
Are you saying that Jesus is the Bible? Is that what you are equating? John was talking about the Greek concept of logos, not about any actual text in particular. Not to mention that while most of the books and letters had been written, the Gospel of John itself and at least the Apocalypse of John had not been composed. To what written word was John referring? I don't see any warrant at all to equate John's description and depiction of Jesus to the Bible, which was not collected as a single unit until 300 years later.
I can understand a fondness for the KJV. Especially when it comes to poetry, the translation exhibits a certain literary flair. However, then there are the rest of the passages. Do you use the KJV or the NKJV? Where does it stop for you? Why would you want to exclude better source material? I can understand a preference for one translation over another, what I have a hard time understanding is sweeping away all other translations. The great thing about the King James was that it was written in the vernacular of the people of its time. That was the great thing about the Vulgate (despite its textual issues). Once the vernacular of the people changes, a translation looses its effectiveness and an update is needed.
08/15/07 @ 06:14
Comment from: Dan [Member]
Ford,
Henry is right on about logos. John was not writing about the Bible there, especially the KJV. We have so many more manuscripts now that modern translations, even the NKJV, are superior.
Egger & Henry,
From the Chciago Statement, it clearly states inspiration applies only to the autographs. I don't understand where the confusion lies that it doesn't address our contemporary translations? What am I missing?
"Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
Henry is right on about logos. John was not writing about the Bible there, especially the KJV. We have so many more manuscripts now that modern translations, even the NKJV, are superior.
Egger & Henry,
From the Chciago Statement, it clearly states inspiration applies only to the autographs. I don't understand where the confusion lies that it doesn't address our contemporary translations? What am I missing?
"Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
08/19/07 @ 08:33
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
Dan,
I haven't forgotten about this one. stay tuned.
I haven't forgotten about this one. stay tuned.
09/22/07 @ 21:19
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
E. I., In regards to your following statatement: "I truly believe that God has protected his inspired words to reach us but it is obvious that the text is not textually pure. That is, the concepts are pure but not the texts. What we hold in our hands is not inerrant or infallible. What we hold in our hearts and minds is."
I would even go further than your quote above and say that "the concepts are [NOT all] pure." James "faith plus works" doctrine in Chap 2 directly contradicts the Gospel of our Lord. Yet, Christian apologists consistently ignore the literal grammatical meaning of the text, lest they go against this "inerrant and infallible" doctrine, and try to harmonize it with the true gospel. The doctrine of "innerrancy and infallibility" of the bible of doctrine is stumbling block and a millstone around the necks of Christian believers.
Thank you for your article.
I would even go further than your quote above and say that "the concepts are [NOT all] pure." James "faith plus works" doctrine in Chap 2 directly contradicts the Gospel of our Lord. Yet, Christian apologists consistently ignore the literal grammatical meaning of the text, lest they go against this "inerrant and infallible" doctrine, and try to harmonize it with the true gospel. The doctrine of "innerrancy and infallibility" of the bible of doctrine is stumbling block and a millstone around the necks of Christian believers.
Thank you for your article.
10/08/07 @ 12:48
Comment from: Dan [Member]
R.M., are you implying that the book of James doesn't belong in the canon?
10/08/07 @ 16:57
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
No, I am not saying that at all. If we were to start taking books out of the cannon, then we could not stop with James. We would have to take out Job too, for twice in Job 42: 7-8 God says that Job’s friends have not “spoken of me [Him] what is right.” Therefore, there are inaccuracies, errors, or untruths about the character of God in the book of Job.
The collection of books (Bible) that we have now is indeed what God designed for us to have. Could God have allowed the authors of the books in the Bible to write down errors about God’s character and His principles? He obviously has, as I’ve shown above, for His divine purpose. But as the Master Teacher that our God is, He has not left us to stumble in the dark, He has equipped us (through the power of His Spirit) to be able to discern truth from error when we read the Bible. And this is especially true in regards to the Gospel. James’ faith-plus-works conclusion in Chap 2 obviously contradicts Paul’s gospel of grace in Romans.
The collection of books (Bible) that we have now is indeed what God designed for us to have. Could God have allowed the authors of the books in the Bible to write down errors about God’s character and His principles? He obviously has, as I’ve shown above, for His divine purpose. But as the Master Teacher that our God is, He has not left us to stumble in the dark, He has equipped us (through the power of His Spirit) to be able to discern truth from error when we read the Bible. And this is especially true in regards to the Gospel. James’ faith-plus-works conclusion in Chap 2 obviously contradicts Paul’s gospel of grace in Romans.
10/10/07 @ 13:05
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
R. M. - Thanks for your comment. I like your response.
Dan -
R. M.'s comment made me think of an interesting dilemma - what if God meant for these text to include errors?
He obviously left errors creep into the text so perhaps he never meant them to be error-free.
Paul doesn't say they are error-free. He simply said they were inspired. Could God inspire errors (at least "errors" from our perspective)?
My real problem is to say that the originals were error free when we don't have them. I mean - I do see Paul writing his letters and him being inspired. Yet, who is to say what happened right after? Who is to say that the line about "all scripture is inspired" wasn't added by someone else? We can't say that with any certainty.
Do you agree that it takes faith to say that the autographs were error free?
Dan -
R. M.'s comment made me think of an interesting dilemma - what if God meant for these text to include errors?
He obviously left errors creep into the text so perhaps he never meant them to be error-free.
Paul doesn't say they are error-free. He simply said they were inspired. Could God inspire errors (at least "errors" from our perspective)?
My real problem is to say that the originals were error free when we don't have them. I mean - I do see Paul writing his letters and him being inspired. Yet, who is to say what happened right after? Who is to say that the line about "all scripture is inspired" wasn't added by someone else? We can't say that with any certainty.
Do you agree that it takes faith to say that the autographs were error free?
10/10/07 @ 13:55
Comment from: Dan [Member]
RM, The Bible states that "the fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalms 14:1). This is hardly an error. God clearly communicated exactly what He meant to communicate.
E, How do you come to the conclusion that God let errors creep into the text? Since you don't have the inspired originals, how can you assume they have errors? If you mean errors in the copies, I'm not aware of anyone who claims the copies are inerrant, so this is a straw man.
No, God can't inspire errors from His perspective. If God intended for a thing to be written, it is by definition not an error. It is exactly what God intended to be written.
From our perspective, the definition of "error" changes, so our perspective is not relevant. What is relevant is what the authors of the texts believed to be "inspired", God-breathed, and therefore, inerrant. I have yet to see any so-called "error" in the text that would have been considered an error by the standards of the time and people in which it was written.
Do you agree it takes faith to say the autographs contained errors? I don't understand why inerrancy can only be shown with autographs. How do you reach that conclusion? I could just as easily argue that errancy must be proven with autographs.
E, How do you come to the conclusion that God let errors creep into the text? Since you don't have the inspired originals, how can you assume they have errors? If you mean errors in the copies, I'm not aware of anyone who claims the copies are inerrant, so this is a straw man.
No, God can't inspire errors from His perspective. If God intended for a thing to be written, it is by definition not an error. It is exactly what God intended to be written.
From our perspective, the definition of "error" changes, so our perspective is not relevant. What is relevant is what the authors of the texts believed to be "inspired", God-breathed, and therefore, inerrant. I have yet to see any so-called "error" in the text that would have been considered an error by the standards of the time and people in which it was written.
Do you agree it takes faith to say the autographs contained errors? I don't understand why inerrancy can only be shown with autographs. How do you reach that conclusion? I could just as easily argue that errancy must be proven with autographs.
10/10/07 @ 15:21
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
God let errors creep into the text
Dan - By this - I meant the text of the manuscripts (e.g. copies) we have.
Do you agree that the 27K+ manuscripts we have contain inconsistencies, typographical errors, and intentional additions?
(e.g. How many charioteers were killed by David, 700 or 7000?)
Dan - By this - I meant the text of the manuscripts (e.g. copies) we have.
Do you agree that the 27K+ manuscripts we have contain inconsistencies, typographical errors, and intentional additions?
(e.g. How many charioteers were killed by David, 700 or 7000?)
10/10/07 @ 17:17
Comment from: Dan [Member]
E,
Of course :) I don't know anybody who claims otherwise.
Of course :) I don't know anybody who claims otherwise.
10/10/07 @ 17:53
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
I know how much you love conspiracy theories so bare with me here...
If you agree that our current Bible version has errors and intentional additions, how do you know the verses about inspiration were not added by a good meaning scribe?
As a Christian, I'm with you. But as a devil's advocate, I don't see how I will be taken seriously by simply saying the original writings were without error. I have no evidence of that other than to say God can work miracles such as the "inspiration" of the autographs.
What am I missing?
If you agree that our current Bible version has errors and intentional additions, how do you know the verses about inspiration were not added by a good meaning scribe?
As a Christian, I'm with you. But as a devil's advocate, I don't see how I will be taken seriously by simply saying the original writings were without error. I have no evidence of that other than to say God can work miracles such as the "inspiration" of the autographs.
What am I missing?
10/10/07 @ 22:02
Comment from: Dan [Member]
E, the question is not "is it possible that x". The question is, is it more likely that the autographs were inerrant or not inerrant? I see no evidence to lead me to believe the inerrancy verses were somehow added later by a scribe. In fact it would have been almost impossible to do so since there were thousands of copies in circulation before the canon was even fixed. It is simply not rational to believe in this conspiracy. The evidence points overwhelmingly to inerrant originals. Why would I believe what might have at most a 0.01% chance of being true?
If Mr. Atheist claim errors in the autographs, he can show me an error in the autographs.
If the devil's advocate wants 100% proof, I'm afraid he will have to wait for the next life. I don't have 100% proof the entire universe isn't just a dream I'm having at the moment.
If Mr. Atheist claim errors in the autographs, he can show me an error in the autographs.
If the devil's advocate wants 100% proof, I'm afraid he will have to wait for the next life. I don't have 100% proof the entire universe isn't just a dream I'm having at the moment.
10/11/07 @ 07:01
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
EI: thanks!
Dan you said:
"RM, The Bible states that "the fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalms 14:1). This is hardly an error. God clearly communicated exactly what He meant to communicate. ......
....No, God can't inspire errors from His perspective. If God intended for a thing to be written, it is by definition not an error. It is exactly what God intended to be written."
Dan, you are agreeing with me. That is exactly what I said previously. The books of the bible that we have now are exactly what God designed for us to have.
And so yes, from God's perspective they are perfect--flaws and all.
It is not unlike a professor who gives a true or false test to his class. If a student were to come to the professor and point out to him that the test is flawed because there are several false statements in it, the professor could answer that the test is perfect as is--that he intended it to be that way in order to test their knowledge of the subject.
As to whether the original texts were without error or not, it really does not make a difference.
We have to address the books we actually have on hand as they are.
I really thank you and EI for tackling this subject of inerrancy.
The majority of pastors would never let a believer even start to question this doctrine.
The Lord bless you both!
Dan you said:
"RM, The Bible states that "the fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalms 14:1). This is hardly an error. God clearly communicated exactly what He meant to communicate. ......
....No, God can't inspire errors from His perspective. If God intended for a thing to be written, it is by definition not an error. It is exactly what God intended to be written."
Dan, you are agreeing with me. That is exactly what I said previously. The books of the bible that we have now are exactly what God designed for us to have.
And so yes, from God's perspective they are perfect--flaws and all.
It is not unlike a professor who gives a true or false test to his class. If a student were to come to the professor and point out to him that the test is flawed because there are several false statements in it, the professor could answer that the test is perfect as is--that he intended it to be that way in order to test their knowledge of the subject.
As to whether the original texts were without error or not, it really does not make a difference.
We have to address the books we actually have on hand as they are.
I really thank you and EI for tackling this subject of inerrancy.
The majority of pastors would never let a believer even start to question this doctrine.
The Lord bless you both!
10/11/07 @ 10:23
Comment from: R.M. [Visitor]
Dan,
I would like to hear what you have to say about the verse in Job that I quoted in my previous post.
Thank you!
I would like to hear what you have to say about the verse in Job that I quoted in my previous post.
Thank you!
10/11/07 @ 10:26
Comment from: Dan [Member]
RM, thanks for commenting. About Job I would say along the same lines as my Psalms 14 comment. God intended it to be there, so I wouldn't call it an error. Thanks for reading our site.
10/11/07 @ 15:18
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
I see no evidence to lead me to believe the inerrancy verses were somehow added later by a scribe. In fact it would have been almost impossible to do so since there were thousands of copies in circulation before the canon was even fixed.
Dan, what's your source for the "thousands of copies in circulation" before the canon was fixed? And what year would you say the canon was fixed?
10/11/07 @ 17:32
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
Dan said: "RM, thanks for commenting. About Job I would say along the same lines as my Psalms 14 comment. God intended it to be there, so I wouldn't call it an error. Thanks for reading our site."
Sorry Dan, you don't get off that easy. (grin)
That God intended the Job narrative to be there as is is obvious so in that sense you are absolutely right. There is no error there.
However, there are errors within that narrative about God's character because God said so.
Hanging on to this inerrancy doctrine at all costs regardless of what the Holy Spirit is showing us, hurts both believers and non-believers.
We especially do a diservice to those nonbelievers who are searching for the truth when we don't give them honest and truthful answers to their questions. They can read too.
Sorry Dan, you don't get off that easy. (grin)
That God intended the Job narrative to be there as is is obvious so in that sense you are absolutely right. There is no error there.
However, there are errors within that narrative about God's character because God said so.
Hanging on to this inerrancy doctrine at all costs regardless of what the Holy Spirit is showing us, hurts both believers and non-believers.
We especially do a diservice to those nonbelievers who are searching for the truth when we don't give them honest and truthful answers to their questions. They can read too.
10/12/07 @ 07:43
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
E.I.
When I saw you quote the following to Dan: "I see no evidence to lead me to believe the inerrancy verses were somehow added later by a scribe." it made me think of the following verse:
Jer 8:8
8 "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV)
Jer 8:8
8 "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV)
When I saw you quote the following to Dan: "I see no evidence to lead me to believe the inerrancy verses were somehow added later by a scribe." it made me think of the following verse:
Jer 8:8
8 "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV)
Jer 8:8
8 "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV)
10/12/07 @ 07:47
Comment from: Dan [Member]
As long as we're practicing dalmation theology ;), how are we to determine what is an error and what is not?
10/12/07 @ 08:03
Comment from: Dan [Member]
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, THE REPORTING OF FALSEHOODS, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
RM, I think we are using inerrancy in different senses. For your part, you are quite correct to say the Bible "contains error" (Job, etc. that you cited). I would agree with Chicago that this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy since the Bible doesn't affirm or teach human error, but does report it as you correctly stated.
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, THE REPORTING OF FALSEHOODS, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
RM, I think we are using inerrancy in different senses. For your part, you are quite correct to say the Bible "contains error" (Job, etc. that you cited). I would agree with Chicago that this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy since the Bible doesn't affirm or teach human error, but does report it as you correctly stated.
10/12/07 @ 08:07
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
Dan,
We take great pride in the coherence and reliability of our Scriptures. And so the problem is really trying to explain these "errors" as coherently as possible.
Suppose you meet someone on the bus on your way to work. You get to talking. He asks about Jer 8:8 or David killing 700 vs. 7000 charioteers, or The Johannine Comma.
What do you tell him?
How do you explain Irrerancy in the 5 minutes before your stop?
We take great pride in the coherence and reliability of our Scriptures. And so the problem is really trying to explain these "errors" as coherently as possible.
Suppose you meet someone on the bus on your way to work. You get to talking. He asks about Jer 8:8 or David killing 700 vs. 7000 charioteers, or The Johannine Comma.
What do you tell him?
How do you explain Irrerancy in the 5 minutes before your stop?
10/12/07 @ 12:17
Comment from: R. M. [Visitor]
Dan,
Did you mean to say "dalmatian" and if so say "dogged" theology?
;) LOL ..
At any rate, in answer to your question: "how are we to determine what is an error and what is not?"
Isn't this the crux of the matter? If we cannot hang on to this doctrinal sacred cow of inerrancy (not to mention infallibility) how are we going to know what is truth and what is not?
By the Holy Spirit of course!! Didn't God say the Holy Spirit would bring us into all truth?
But the sad truth is we don't trust the Holy Spirit to do His job... and with this doctrine in place, we don't have to.
Did you mean to say "dalmatian" and if so say "dogged" theology?
;) LOL ..
At any rate, in answer to your question: "how are we to determine what is an error and what is not?"
Isn't this the crux of the matter? If we cannot hang on to this doctrinal sacred cow of inerrancy (not to mention infallibility) how are we going to know what is truth and what is not?
By the Holy Spirit of course!! Didn't God say the Holy Spirit would bring us into all truth?
But the sad truth is we don't trust the Holy Spirit to do His job... and with this doctrine in place, we don't have to.
10/12/07 @ 12:36
Comment from: V.G. [Visitor]
In regards to your following statement: "I truly believe that God has protected his inspired words to reach us but it is obvious that the text is not textually pure. That is, the concepts are pure but not the texts. What we hold in our hands is not inerrant or infallible. What we hold in our hearts and minds is."
I would even go further than your quote above and say that "the concepts are [NOT all] pure." James "faith plus works" doctrine in Chap 2 directly contradicts the Gospel of our Lord. Yet, Christian apologists consistently ignore the literal grammatical meaning of the text, lest they go against this "inerrant and infallible" doctrine, and try to harmonize it with the true gospel. The doctrine of "innerrancy and infallibility" of the bible of doctrine is stumbling block and a millstone around the necks of Christian believers.
E.I.S., sorry for the late reply.
The way I would go further than your quote is to say some parts of the Bible are more important than others. Some criteria I'd use:
(1) The closer something is in some way to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, the more important it is, e.g., the New Testament is more important than the Old, and the books at the front of the New Testament are more important than those at the back. The gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's letters were collected first, are closer to the events they describe, and so should be considered as more important.
(2) The more often something is said, the more important it is, e.g. "saved by faith alone" in Romans is more important than "faith plus works" in James, and is mentioned many more times.
(3) The primary meaning of a passage should be considered more important than the secondary meanings, e.g. "as they also twist the other scriptures" in Peter is a secondary comment in a passage that has primary meaning "some people twist the scriptures".
(4) Linking passages together should only be done when written by the same person in the same writing. Peter's "as they also twist the other scriptures" and Paul's "all scripture is God-breathed" are written by two different people, and shouldn't be linked.
I'm sure there's other criteria also. An example of violating all of these criteria I've given is matching a single verse in Revelation with one in Daniel to form an eschatological doctrine. An example of following all of these criteria is giving a standalone gospel of John to someone.
The only pure, infallible, inerrant scripture is when the Son of God was on the cross, saw everything had been completed, and cried out "It is finished" when breathing out his last breath. Everything else becomes scripture because it elaborates on this event, the spiritual center of the universe. Jesus Christ himself is the True Autograph. He is Purity, Inerrancy, and Infallibility, and he can make us pure, inerrant, and infallible as we enjoy his Presence.
For the Bible isn't like a flat square field, where each part is as important as each other. Rather, it's like a mountain, with perhaps John's and Matthew's gospels around the top, Paul's letters and Luke/Acts a little further down because he was a decade removed from Jesus' life, the rest of the New Testament further down still, then the Old Testament, the Law and Prophets more important than the Writings section. If the Apocrythia has any importance, then it's at the bottom of the mountain. But I'd suggest we'd find important books from church history or comtemporary Christian writings more profitable than many less important parts of the Old Testament.
05/10/08 @ 19:04
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]
V.G.,
Thanks for the comment. I like the way you built your case. I wonder how others would feel about your first point of putting more importance on the N.T. being more important than the O.T.
let's see if others comment on that.
Thanks for the comment. I like the way you built your case. I wonder how others would feel about your first point of putting more importance on the N.T. being more important than the O.T.
let's see if others comment on that.
05/11/08 @ 18:38
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
I'm curious as to how inerrancy and infallibility fare when events which are presented as happening are completely unsupported by empirical evidence, such as the global flood, the walls of jericho, the garden of eden, and even such things as Nazareth being described as a city?
Is the infallibility which christians affirm the reason that said evidence is ignored or denied?
Is the infallibility which christians affirm the reason that said evidence is ignored or denied?
05/12/08 @ 04:31
Comment from: Neil [Visitor] · http://4simpsons.wordpress.com
Actually, there is evidence for all those things. You are too busy reading the New Atheists' foolishness. Do some real research.
05/12/08 @ 08:48
Comment from: V.G. [Visitor]
E.I.S., the example I gave of the NT more important than the OT is average case only - I'm sure there's many parts of the OT that are more important than some in the NT.
Havok, you chose as examples some early OT passages. I've sometimes refered to small towns as "cities" when talking about some other detail about them. God can let earthquakes shatter a city's walls just when the attackers are waiting outside. And I'm sure there was a flood in Mesopotamia way back, and God spoke to Noah beforehand, who had a boat ready with some animals and food, and so survived it. That's the primary purpose of the story. Whether it covered "the whole earth" or just Iraq, or was exactly 40 days, or two of every animal, or whatever, is secondary, and doesn't matter to some of the main messages of the story: (1) if we listen to God and obey him, he can keep us from bad things, and (2) he'll keep a believing renmant safe from disasters he sends.
As for the garden of Eden: Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created..." That's the true meaning of the story, not how long it took. And those living in Eden (upper Euphrates) were the first to know evil. Like with the flood, God punished them in various ways.
We should focus on the more recent and repeated parts of the Bible, such as the death and resurrection of Christ. Not just the gospels but also people years later such as Paul, or even those many who've experienced Christ's transforming Spirit since, even in our own age?
Havok, you chose as examples some early OT passages. I've sometimes refered to small towns as "cities" when talking about some other detail about them. God can let earthquakes shatter a city's walls just when the attackers are waiting outside. And I'm sure there was a flood in Mesopotamia way back, and God spoke to Noah beforehand, who had a boat ready with some animals and food, and so survived it. That's the primary purpose of the story. Whether it covered "the whole earth" or just Iraq, or was exactly 40 days, or two of every animal, or whatever, is secondary, and doesn't matter to some of the main messages of the story: (1) if we listen to God and obey him, he can keep us from bad things, and (2) he'll keep a believing renmant safe from disasters he sends.
As for the garden of Eden: Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created..." That's the true meaning of the story, not how long it took. And those living in Eden (upper Euphrates) were the first to know evil. Like with the flood, God punished them in various ways.
We should focus on the more recent and repeated parts of the Bible, such as the death and resurrection of Christ. Not just the gospels but also people years later such as Paul, or even those many who've experienced Christ's transforming Spirit since, even in our own age?
05/12/08 @ 17:56
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
Neil: Actually, there is evidence for all those things. You are too busy reading the New Atheists' foolishness. Do some real research.
Where is this evidence Neil? I hope it is credible, and not something from AiG. Stories of entire continents moving at feet per second (walking pace or faster) do not stand up under scrutiny, and do not match the evidence we have.
Always fun hearing from you though :-)
V.G.: Havok, you chose as examples some early OT passages. I've sometimes refered to small towns as "cities" when talking about some other detail about them.
Well, the evidence doesn't even support a small town. The evidence shows it was predominantly a graveyard. Evidence of it being occupied at all at the time is extrapolated from a possible single farm house in the area.
There is no evidence for a synagogue nor a nearby cliff.
V.G. God can let earthquakes shatter a city's walls just when the attackers are waiting outside.
The archaeological evidence shows the city of Jericho didn't have walls at the time, therefore they could not have been knocked down.
V.G.: And I'm sure there was a flood in Mesopotamia way back, and God spoke to Noah beforehand, who had a boat ready with some animals and food, and so survived it.
There were floods. Completely natural things. Sometimes they're large enough to be catastrophic. Many civilisations have their own flood myth, placing them at different times, places and severities. In fact the biblical flood myth appears to be taken from the epic of Gilgamesh.
V.G.: That's the primary purpose of the story. Whether it covered "the whole earth" or just Iraq, or was exactly 40 days, or two of every animal, or whatever, is secondary, and doesn't matter to some of the main messages of the story:
Well, it matters to "literalists/contextualists" like Neil above. It also matter if you want to claim that the bible is historically accurate.
V.G.: As for the garden of Eden: Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created..." That's the true meaning of the story, not how long it took.
Not the incorrect order of things? Nor the creation of the earth prior to the sun? Nor the fixing the stars in the firmament? These things don't matter? If they don't matter, why does "In the beginning El/YWHW created..." matter?
And those living in Eden (upper Euphrates) were the first to know evil. Like with the flood, God punished them in various ways.
There is no evidence to support this assertion.
As I posted on a previous thread, the enire garden of eden myth is a set up, with Yahweh blaming man for something which he intended and caused.
We should focus on the more recent and repeated parts of the Bible, such as the death and resurrection of Christ.
Critical historical investigation does not support that event.
V.G.: Not just the gospels but also people years later such as Paul,
Paul's letter were written before the gospels.
V.G.: or even those many who've experienced Christ's transforming Spirit since, even in our own age?
And the transforming spirit of Vishnu or Allah? Perhaps the remarkable effect Buddhism has in peoples lives.
Perhaps you should investigate Sathya Sai Baba, an indian guru who has performed miracles. There is even eyewitness testimony of him raising someone from the dead. He's a buddhist by the way, so surely this lends support to the truth of his beliefs.
05/13/08 @ 02:54
Comment feed for this post
