Biblical Inerrancy Doctrine: A Bridge Too Far

[Steve Petersen]

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE FACTUAL error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such.

Inerrancy is often said to be true of the original documents. We don't have those, so this is a non-starter.

Since we don't have the originals, the only way for the Bible to be inerrant would be for God to insure that NO errors crept into the copies. Now we are talking about inspired copies too?

Since the many various biblical manuscripts DO have differences, now you have to sort out which, if any, was the manuscript God intended for us to have.

Even when you settle on the copy that you believe is God-inspired, we don't have the original manuscript to check it against.

Finally, when you talk about Biblical inerrancy, I have to ask, 'Which Bible?' Different Christian groups have had different collections of books in their Bibles throughout history. Which collection of books is the 'true Bible.'

Even between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will find differences TODAY. The Catholic bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles. Which versions of these two books is 'God-inspired?'

 

[Lulav]

I think you have to look at it from the view of the book of Job and the perspective of Hillel regarding v'ahavtah l'reiacha kamochah.

 

[Ken Rank]

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE FACTUAL error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such.

Inerrancy is often said to be true of the original documents. We don't have those, so this is a non-starter.

Since we don't have the originals, the only way for the Bible to be inerrant would be for God to insure that NO errors crept into the copies. Now we are talking about inspired copies too?

Since the many various biblical manuscripts DO have differences, now you have to sort out which, if any, was the manuscript God intended for us to have.

Even when you settle on the copy that you believe is God-inspired, we don't have the original manuscript to check it against.

Finally, when you talk about Biblical inerrancy, I have to ask, 'Which Bible?' Different Christian groups have had different collections of books in their Bibles throughout history. Which collection of books is the 'true Bible.'

Even between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will find differences TODAY. The Catholic bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles. Which versions of these two books is 'God-inspired?'

This is sure to become a polarized thread as textual criticism tends to unnerve those who have not studied beyond the memorization of facts as their denomination holds them. But... it is a topic that needs to be addressed because, for those who hold to the notion that a translation can be perfectly preserved, it opens them up to attack from those who know better.

The truth us, there are many reasons why we should not view a "translation" as inerrant. The fact is, it is a "translation" and anyone who studies languages knows there are words that just don't translate over very well. Here is one good example...

God made a b'rit with Abraham. When translated into English, the closest word that we have to b'rit is covenant. However, a b'rit is more than just an agreement between 2 or more parties, it is an agreement that is sealed in blood. When you look the word up you see it involves cutting and blood... a covenant does NOT contain these concepts. Even so, a covenant is darn close to a b'rit as compared to how this comes out in other languages. When b'rit gets taken into Greek, it becomes diatheke but diatheke is best brought into English as TESTAMENT, as if a WILL. Why do we have an old TESTAMENT and new TESTAMENT? Because we didn't consider the b'rit that God has made... we translated out of a language apart from the original. God does not make a will and testament... He makes a b'rit.

That is just the translational side of this discussion. We also have the fact you already brought up Steve, we lack the original letters. One of the kings (name escapes me right now) was 3 when he became king in one book and 13 in another... so which was it? We don't have the original so we can't prove that one way or the other. But what we CAN DO is look for consistency in Scripture. We have 4 gospels, 3 written in one manner and one written in another and most of the claims about Yeshua (Jesus) are consistent throughout... so I think we can trust that.

God did inspire the authors to write, I am FIRMLY convinced of that. But without those letters, we have to accept the fact that we only have copies and in pretty much all cases.... copies of copies of copies that have been translated into our language.

So which bible? The one you are most comfortable reading but when you study look up EVERY word in a couple of different lexicons. Don't assume anything. Here is an example of why we might look up even the most simple of words:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.

Two times the word "and" appears, so what, right? It is two different words... kai and te... and and both. So, "gentiles and kings both the children of Israel." Now read Jacob's blessing in Genesis 35:11... quite interesting. Point being, take nothing for granted.

 

[Steve Petersen]

This is sure to become a polarized thread as textual criticism tends to unnerve those who have not studied beyond the memorization of facts as their denomination holds them. But... it is a topic that needs to be addressed because, for those who hold to the notion that a translation can be perfectly preserved, it opens them up to attack from those who know better.

The truth us, there are many reasons why we should not view a "translation" as inerrant. The fact is, it is a "translation" and anyone who studies languages knows there are words that just don't translate over very well. Here is one good example...

God made a b'rit with Abraham. When translated into English, the closest word that we have to b'rit is covenant. However, a b'rit is more than just an agreement between 2 or more parties, it is an agreement that is sealed in blood. When you look the word up you see it involves cutting and blood... a covenant does NOT contain these concepts. Even so, a covenant is darn close to a b'rit as compared to how this comes out in other languages. When b'rit gets taken into Greek, it becomes diatheke but diatheke is best brought into English as TESTAMENT, as if a WILL. Why do we have an old TESTAMENT and new TESTAMENT? Because we didn't consider the b'rit that God has made... we translated out of a language apart from the original. God does not make a will and testament... He makes a b'rit.

That is just the translational side of this discussion. We also have the fact you already brought up Steve, we lack the original letters. One of the kings (name escapes me right now) was 3 when he became king in one book and 13 in another... so which was it? We don't have the original so we can't prove that one way or the other. But what we CAN DO is look for consistency in Scripture. We have 4 gospels, 3 written in one manner and one written in another and most of the claims about Yeshua (Jesus) are consistent throughout... so I think we can trust that.

God did inspire the authors to write, I am FIRMLY convinced of that. But without those letters, we have to accept the fact that we only have copies and in pretty much all cases.... copies of copies of copies that have been translated into our language.

So which bible? The one you are most comfortable reading but when you study look up EVERY word in a couple of different lexicons. Don't assume anything. Here is an example of why we might look up even the most simple of words:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.

Two times the word "and" appears, so what, right? It is two different words... kai and te... and and both. So, "gentiles and kings both the children of Israel." Now read Jacob's blessing in Genesis 35:11... quite interesting. Point being, take nothing for granted.

I am less concerned with translational issues than with textual variants and added or missing documents (in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic etc) that are used as the basis for our bibles.

 

[Steve Petersen]

English, please Lulav.

 

[Ken Rank]

I am less concerned with translational issues than with textual variants and added or missing documents (in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic etc) that are used as the basis for our bibles.

From that point Steve you really covered it well. We don't have the originals. I trust Paul's words, "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God." Of course, why I see the NT as inspired, Paul was speaking about the canon of that day. But, without the originals, we really are left to A. trust that God preserved what He wanted us to have and B. that we still take nothing for granted and we look up each word and ALSO see how and where else it has been used so as to gain additional context. Because the truth is, there ARE variants as you pointed out, they exist and we can't just ignore them because they do exist.

 

[Steve Petersen]

From that point Steve you really covered it well. We don't have the originals. I trust Paul's words, "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God." Of course, why I see the NT as inspired, Paul was speaking about the canon of that day. But, without the originals, we really are left to A. trust that God preserved what He wanted us to have and B. that we still take nothing for granted and we look up each word and ALSO see how and where else it has been used so as to gain additional context. Because the truth is, there ARE variants as you pointed out, they exist and we can't just ignore them because they do exist.

What was the canon in Paul's day? I understand that no fragments of Esther have been found in Qumran.

The Dead Sea scrolls do have variant readings to the Masoretic texts, albeit minor. This fact disproves inerrancy, unless God is a poor speller.

 

[smithed64]

Why, to which bit?

That tithing is not binding on Christians is demonstrated in Acts 15:19-20, where tithing is not mentioned as something from the law necessary for Christians. There is no mention anywhere in the New Testament of Christians paying tithes.

That contributing to the household of faith is a requirement of Christians is a much more complex picture, but you can look at the stuff Paul writes about each having gifts to contribute to the good of all and so on as a starting point.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE FACTUAL error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such.

Inerrancy is often said to be true of the original documents. We don't have those, so this is a non-starter.

Since we don't have the originals, the only way for the Bible to be inerrant would be for God to insure that NO errors crept into the copies. Now we are talking about inspired copies too?

Since the many various biblical manuscripts DO have differences, now you have to sort out which, if any, was the manuscript God intended for us to have.

Even when you settle on the copy that you believe is God-inspired, we don't have the original manuscript to check it against.

Finally, when you talk about Biblical inerrancy, I have to ask, 'Which Bible?' Different Christian groups have had different collections of books in their Bibles throughout history. Which collection of books is the 'true Bible.'

Even between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will find differences TODAY. The Catholic bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles. Which versions of these two books is 'God-inspired?'

There are some mistakes in the copied versions of the Bible. Your correct in stating that the author version (original) was inspired and therefore inerrant. But there may be some misspelling, or copyist errors in the copies.

The Originals are Inspired-not the copies.
What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired--not the copies. The autographs are the original writings--the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. But don't worry, the Bible manuscripts are 98.5% textually pure. Only a very small amount of information is in question because we have repetitive facts, instructions, and information found elsewhere in the Bible. Nevertheless, through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples.

• Dittography--Writing twice what should have been written once. Example: writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
• Fission--Improperly dividing one word into two words. Example: changing "nowhere" into "now here."
• Fusion--Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word. Example: "Look it is there in the cabinet . . . or Look it is therein the cabinet."
• Haplography--Writing once what should have been written twice. Example: "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
• Homophony--Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation. Example: Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
• Metathesis--An improper exchange in the order of letters. Example: Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

The important thing is this. Yet there are different types of errors in the copied version. Not one of the errors, take away from the main point of God's Word.

God the Creator, created all and it was very good, Even the creation of man, Man sinned and brought in death, God brought in salvation by coming to earth as the form of Man, Jesus Christ, who went about the Father's business for the salvation of man, was Crucified, and nail our sins to the cross. Who defeated death in His resurrection, which He gives to us through His grace, through repentance and trusting in Jesus, so that we can have eternal life with Him.

None of this doesn't change.

 

[Ken Rank]

What was the canon in Paul's day? I understand that no fragments of Esther have been found in Qumran.

My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that the Torah and the Prophets were canonized by Nehemiah (who excluded his own writings and the writings of his friend Nehemiah) and in 90AD the Writings were canonized to complete the Tanach. The Psalms I think were included in 90 officially but were always held in a very high esteem. And even though the "canon" wasn't made official until which time it was depending on which set of books we are talking about, the reason they were canonized is because of the weight placed on them.

My Paul comment was more a seed planted for the more mainstream who might mistakenly consider the NT as that which Paul was speaking about. He of course wasn't, the NT was compiled and made canon until 200AD.

The Dead Sea scrolls do have variant readings to the Masoretic texts, albeit minor. This fact disproves inerrancy, unless God is a poor speller.

Yes and no. We don't even need to go to the DSS for you to make your point. We simply need to go to the LXX to find the same. There are times Yeshua or Paul (or whoever) quote the Tanach but their quote does not match the Massoretic texts but it DOES match the Septuagint. Does that mean the ancient Greek is the true source for OT writings? No... it means that the LXX was translated into Greek from a Hebrew source we either no longer have or simply do not allow out in public for whatever reason.

So what do I personally do with all this? When I read I usually read the NKJV if my goal is to just sit back and read. But if I am studying, and trying to make connections... then I look up every word, define every word, and use every course available to find a balance and a harmony in what is being said. I might consider the Massoretic texts, the LXX, something from the DSS AND a Targum before drawing a conclusion. I try to weigh as much out as possible seeing we do have these variants.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are some mistakes in the copied versions of the Bible. Your correct in stating that the author version (original) was inspired and therefore inerrant. But there may be some misspelling, or copyist errors in the copies.

The Originals are Inspired-not the copies.
What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired--not the copies. The autographs are the original writings--the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. But don't worry, the Bible manuscripts are 98.5% textually pure. Only a very small amount of information is in question because we have repetitive facts, instructions, and information found elsewhere in the Bible. Nevertheless, through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples.

• Dittography--Writing twice what should have been written once. Example: writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
• Fission--Improperly dividing one word into two words. Example: changing "nowhere" into "now here."
• Fusion--Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word. Example: "Look it is there in the cabinet . . . or Look it is therein the cabinet."
• Haplography--Writing once what should have been written twice. Example: "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
• Homophony--Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation. Example: Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
• Metathesis--An improper exchange in the order of letters. Example: Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

The important thing is this. Yet there are different types of errors in the copied version. Not one of the errors, take away from the main point of God's Word.

God the Creator, created all and it was very good, Even the creation of man, Man sinned and brought in death, God brought in salvation by coming to earth as the form of Man, Jesus Christ, who went about the Father's business for the salvation of man, was Crucified, and nail our sins to the cross. Who defeated death in His resurrection, which He gives to us through His grace, through repentance and trusting in Jesus, so that we can have eternal life with Him.

None of this doesn't change.

You didn't address the fact that there are different canons in the Christian world today, nor did you address the different lengths of Daniel and Jeremiah between Catholic and Protestant bibles. I wouldn't call these 'minor' differences of spelling.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So what do I personally do with all this? When I read I usually read the NKJV if my goal is to just sit back and read. But if I am studying, and trying to make connections... then I look up every word, define every word, and use every course available to find a balance and a harmony in what is being said. I might consider the Massoretic texts, the LXX, something from the DSS AND a Targum before drawing a conclusion. I try to weigh as much out as possible seeing we do have these variants.

Besides literary and lexical context WITHIN the Bible, we need to add cultural/historical context from OUTSIDE the Bible.

 

[Ken Rank]

Besides literary and lexical context WITHIN the Bible, we need to add cultural/historical context from OUTSIDE the Bible.

Of course. If Paul quotes a Greek play twice, it might help to understand what the context was from the line he quotes. If Yeshua quotes Targum Jonathan (as he does in John 7:38) then we should probably have that Targum on hand. If Paul uses one of the 7 Rules of Hillel over 30 times... and those rules are designed to affect context... then it would help to at least be able to recognize the exegetical tool he is using. Without it... we can find God, we can please God.... but we would be leaving food on the table He would prefer we eat.

 

[Ken Rank]

By the way, not to derail this as we can take this to another thread at some other time, but "Scripture" in John 7:38 does not have to mean "Scripture" as we use the word today... i.e. "the bible." The Greek word is graphe, and it means anything written... it can also mean holy writ. So the context would drive it... it might be in the bible but it could be a manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls, or one of the Targumim, or anything else written.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Of course. If Paul quotes a Greek play twice, it might help to understand what the context was from the line he quotes. If Yeshua quotes Targum Jonathan (as he does in John 7:38) then we should probably have that Targum on hand. If Paul uses one of the 7 Rules of Hillel over 30 times... and those rules are designed to affect context... then it would help to at least be able to recognize the exegetical tool he is using. Without it... we can find God, we can please God.... but we would be leaving food on the table He would prefer we eat.

I think we must be reading the same books!

 

[Ken Rank]

I think we must be reading the same books!

We are starting a school to teach these things. Being a disciple is not the memorization of facts... it is learning proper methodology and procedure. Historical analysis, linguistics, etymology, semiotics... all the things that should drive a man into a good nap but necessary if we want to OWN our answers. We own them when we go through a procedure to determine them. We don't own them and can't defend them when we just parrot what others have stated. Heading back to camp... Sukkot started last night. We have about 100 staying with us. Blessings.

 

[smithed64]

You didn't address the fact that there are different canons in the Christian world today, nor did you address the different lengths of Daniel and Jeremiah between Catholic and Protestant bibles. I wouldn't call these 'minor' differences of spelling.

Your right, I don't.
Didn't want to go thru all the History with Jerome, the three councils, Luther's arguments, whether they are Deuterocanonical or not. The main thing is this.

The originals are inspired and inerrant. There are some minor errors in the Bible and Catholic Bible. But these errors do not detract from the main message. The salvation of Mankind. And all the books at least in the Christian Bible point to one person...Jesus Christ. And Christ crucified. Repentance of man from sin and placing their trust in Jesus.

I personally don't believe the apocryphal books should be included. Nor the other deuterocanonical books.

The Gospel stays intact and true. That's what matters. And the bible stands on it's own, Many have tried to destroy it and all have failed, who have tried.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Your right, I don't.
Didn't want to go thru all the History with Jerome, the three councils, Luther's arguments, whether they are Deuterocanonical or not. The main thing is this.

The originals are inspired and inerrant. There are some minor errors in the Bible and Catholic Bible. But these errors do not detract from the main message. The salvation of Mankind. And all the books at least in the Christian Bible point to one person...Jesus Christ. And Christ crucified. Repentance of man from sin and placing their trust in Jesus.

I personally don't believe the apocryphal books should be included. Nor the other deuterocanonical books.

The Gospel stays intact and true. That's what matters. And the bible stands on it's own, Many have tried to destroy it and all have failed, who have tried.

Esther wasn't Scripture in Jesus' and Paul's day. Should it be considered Scripture today and on what authority?

 

[Major1]

What was the canon in Paul's day? I understand that no fragments of Esther have been found in Qumran.

The Dead Sea scrolls do have variant readings to the Masoretic texts, albeit minor. This fact disproves inerrancy, unless God is a poor speller.

E. J. Young, in his classic work on the inspiration of the Bible, gives us good definition of inerrancy........
“By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.”

In view of this, when defining inerrancy, it is always important to state clearly what it means and what it does not mean.

It does not demand rigidity of style and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. ‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’(https://bible.org/seriespage/6-bible-inerrant-word-god)

 

[Major1]

I am less concerned with translational issues than with textual variants and added or missing documents (in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic etc) that are used as the basis for our bibles.

The belief the Bible is without error is not new. Clement of Rome in the first century wrote.......
“Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”

A century later, Irenaeus concluded.......
“The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit.”https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

This was the view of the early church leaders, and it has been the consistent view of evangelicals from the ancient Vaudois people of the Piedmont Valley to the sixteenth century Protestant Reformers across Europe and up to the present day.

Not all used the terms “infallibility” or “inerrancy,” but many expressed the concepts, and there is no doubt they believed it. IMO, It is liberalism that has taken a new approach.

Professor Kirsopp Lake at Harvard University admitted, “It is we [the liberals] who have departed from the tradition.”
6.Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow, (Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1926), 62.

 

[Major1]

Esther wasn't Scripture in Jesus' and Paul's day. Should it be considered Scripture today and on what authority?

Just asking. The Revelation was not in Scripture in Jesus and Paul's day. Should it then be considered Scripture?