Biblical Inerrancy

[Wissing]

I'd like to discuss the issue of biblical inerrancy, and hear what other Christians have to say about it. I'll give a little background as to why I'm bringing it up, and who I am.

I've been a Christian most of my life. I've always held the view that the Bible is inerrant, and spent much time trying to reconcile various "contradictions". Over the years, I slowly came to realize (as I'm sure many who debate on this forum have) that it's one thing to convince oneself of what one already believes, and quite another to convince someone else. In discussing my belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I found myself more often on the defense, trying to hold on to that belief, than really sharing it with anyone else. It seems to me that the idea of Biblical inerrancy is meant to establish a moral grounding point that doesn't shift, when instead it often turns into a petty argument about science, philosophy, or semantics. For this reason, I have been growing less and less passionate about my belief. In fact, I'm beginning to see the word "inerrant" as a very serious problem within the church; one that causes division, but brings no good to the table.

I find the Bible to be good, but not the whole story. I don't think it's erroneous or anything, but it's just not supposed to be read like that. It's a collection of writings that collectively tell a story of God's plan to restore mankind. "Inerrant" would imply that it's a constitution. I cannot be passionate about my faith if it's derived from a book written centuries before me. Only if there's a living God moving today can I muster any passion. And so, I now no longer consider the Bible to be inerrant - not because I want to make up my own rules, but because it just seems disingenuous to describe it that way.

I'd like to put down some things that have been on my mind, and see if anyone would like to comment:

1.) It seems that the Bible says very little about itself. I would think that, if God intended us to be reading from a perfect book, he would have at least inspired someone to write that down in the book itself - it shouldn't be debatable, but it is.

2.) Even if we took the few verses that refer to "scripture" (which may or may not mean the 66 books of the modern Bible) as fact, it would be circular logic, because we would have to first assume inerrancy to be sure those verses did not err.

3.) Paul mentions that the law will not be written in ink, but on human hearts. I know we need a standard to keep from shifting our beliefs, but I would think that standard would be the living God. Isn't that Christ's whole point? If we derive full authority from a book, it's just Judaism all over again.

4.) The Bible, even if inerrant, is not 100% clear, and contains many seeming contradictions. The sermon on the mount repeatedly states that various sins disqualify a soul from heaven, yet the Calvinist philosophy based on John 3:16 insists that salvation is exclusively a question of faith. This is extremely critical, and possibly the most divisive issue in the church, and yet people often just pick one, ignore the other, and still walk around saying "inerrant".

5.) The seeming contradictions can be reconciled, but it takes a scholar or theologian to do it; the average person is thus shunned from God's word, or has to take the word of a theologian. This goes against the teaching that the faith is for all nations and races, unless we are only talking about the educated class of each nation.

6.) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, if nothing else, proves that the word "inerrant" requires a full page report to be properly understood. It seems to me that, if we need that big of an asterisk after a word, perhaps we are using the wrong terminology. The statement essentially redefines the word "inerrant" such that it has a completely different meaning when applied to the Bible.

[Wissing]

theophilus40, I agree with many of your points. I've heard most of them from church leaders, Bible study leaders, etc.

The problem for me is, this inerrant view just doesn't seem to work. I'm not one to lean exclusively on my own understanding, but there's something about the idea that just... doesn't move me. I'm becoming more and more apathetic, and I know this is a major reason for it.

It's not a "reason" thing, it's a "experience" thing.

[Elijah John]

theophilus40, I agree with many of your points. I've heard most of them from church leaders, Bible study leaders, etc.

The problem for me is, this inerrant view just doesn't seem to work. I'm not one to lean exclusively on my own understanding, but there's something about the idea that just... doesn't move me. I'm becoming more and more apathetic, and I know this is a major reason for it.

It's not a "reason" thing, it's a "experience" thing.

I found a verse that shook my faith in "innerancy" and took it to a Priest. He told me not to worry to much about the details, but just to remember that "God created the world good, mankind messed it up, and Jesus somehow puts it right".

Words of wisdom, imo.

Also remember that the Bible is a Divine/human partnership, and because we humans are involved, it is no wonder that the inspiration can get muddled and messed up to a degree.

And regarding Otseng's phrase "authoritative but not innerrant" isn't that another way of saying that it is good to "take the Bible seriously but not literally"?

I think that is the unofficial credo of some Liberal (theologically liberal) Mainline Protestant churches, as well as some circles within the RCC.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 1 by Wissing]

I would consider it inspired in the original language and form. Translations and copying errors have caused lots of problems. For example, I can show how later added vowel pointing errors have caused problems in the KJV which many Christians consider the CORRECT version for English. But few understand that is was translated from the Hebrew->Greek->Latin->German->English by fallible men. Yah (God) didn't do, inspire or direct the translations and that assumes that the original codex they worked from didn't have any copy or vowel pointing errors.

Now we have a greater source of original texts in the original languages and have found differences between them. Which one is correct?

Then translating Hebrew is often very imprecise. You have to understand the context to translate it properly. Many times I have found areas where I understood the context but the translators didn't and they tried to turn it into poetry that just plain didn't make much sense.

Then you have errors like putting in a capitol 'G' in the word God when in actuality it can be a reference to a 'god' or just be the word 'mighty' (the actual meaning of El). This is a major problem in the Book of Job. Job's friends were pagans but if you don't understand their pagan references, you don't see they are often talking about their gods/goddesses and the translators missed it.

****************
NOTE: EL which is often translated as God does not mean God. It is 'strength/authority' in the paleo-hebrew which can be translated as 'mighty' in English. When used by itself it implies 'the Mighty One' which CAN BE a reference to God BUT you have to look at the context closely. What happens if it is a reference to say Noah as 'the mighty one' being referenced? What happens if it is a national El of another nation? It would be a reference to their founding father like Canaan is the El of the Canaanites or could it be a reference to a god of the Canaanites?

The same can go for Eloah, Elohyim, El Elyon. I can show you a place in scripture that El, Elohyim and El Elyon are used in the same passage and they all can NOT be a reference to Yah (God). In that case, the El may be the national Els and El Elyon (mightiest of the mighty ones) may be a reference to Noah while Elohyim is a reference to Yah or angels.

IF you took them all to mean God the passage would say something like 'God stands in the assembly of God and judges that God is in error'. It would make no sense. But if God or Noah stood in the assembly of the national Els and found them to be in error, it would make sense. So is it a passage of God judging lesser gods or Noah judging an assembly of his sons/grandsons?

If it doesn't say YHVH (translated 'the LORD') you have to be very careful.
**************************************************************

So is a translation like the KJV inerrant? IMO absolutely NOT. Is it ok for general reading? Sure. Is it good for indepth study to base doctrines on? Not unless the passage is perfectly clear and agrees between many translations and a word study and matches references in other scriptures that back it up.