The Inerrancy of Scripture

Grumpy Old Man said:

I was browsing Reddit a few days ago and a person with a PhD in New Testament Studies invited people to ask questions. This person was asked a question involving the literal interpretation of scripture v scientific evidence for evolution. PhD (who didn't identify themselves as male or female so I'll just address them as PhD) replied with this;



Someone then asked why an imperfect being, inspired by God, would not be able to create something perfect. PhD answered;



I'm curious what Christians think of this. How can the Bible be called "inerrant"? As someone who spent over 20 years as a Christian, I know that no Christian, however inspired by God, can be correct in everything. I've heard Christians give prophecies that failed miserably (I've given a few myself and at the time I believed I was empowered by God's presence). So how can it be argued that someone be given the ability to write the literal words of God without error when prophecies are given in error all the time?

If you read the Bible, it is not just a book about God, it is a book about sinful humans trying to relate to God. NO HUMAN IN THE BIBLE IS EVER DESCRIBED AS PERFECT!!! When you read the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, and all the prophets, you are reading stories about humans that the Bible freely admits are not perfect. In fact, some of the stories in the Bible go fairly in depth about the moral failings of its subjects. And yet we are supposed to believe that somehow, these imperfect humans magically penned a perfect Scripture.

So isn't it better to see the Bible as a collection of books written by sinful humans "as a way to express their devotion to God", rather than the literal and inerrant Word of God? I'm of the latter opinion myself.

For anyone who is interested, the whole thread can be found here.

Click to expand...

I am not convinced by the logical explanation on humans being fallible hence necessarily unable to write one inerrant piece of text each. It doesn't seem that logically consistent to me... if someone happens to write one inerrant sentence, this doesn't make him infallible because he is still very much able to write another errant sentence somewhere else.

But that said, the Bible doesn't really seem inerrant at all to me. If taken literally, it's full of nonsense or mistakes when dealing with historical facts or physical facts about the universe.

Furthermore, the idea that "the Bible is inerrant because it says so itself" is really ridiculous. A liar can say "I always tell the truth" and that's exactly what you would expect him to say, the fact that he says so doesn't make him a truth-sayer. You can't tell a liar from a truth-sayer from that sentence. If the holy book of another religion declares itself infallible too, what does a christian say? I don't think he'd "buy it" if the book is not his own. People "buy it" only because they want to be reassured they are on the right path, having a manual giving you the perfect recipe for righteousness is a very attractive opportunity at lifting yourself from the burden and the responsibility of keep thinking all your life. Also for some, the thought that they might have been "doing it wrong" for years on some topic is simply terrifying, but this is because they don't realize that good and true intentions mean more than anything.

Essentially, adhering to the view that the Bible is inerrant can work for some as a "safety net". Of course for some others, declaring that the Bible is errant can work just the same... it depends on what would be the biggest burden: if someone rejects the burden of complying with some behaviour required by the Bible he will be likely to call it errant, while if someone else rejects the burden of being personally responsible for understanding how to turn the Core Message ("love thy neighbor") into his behaviour then he'll be likely to call the Bible inerrant.

Ultimately, there is some right and some wrong in both, and it may just depend on how honest is your belief.

Looking at what the Biblical books say about themselves is not necessarily circular reasoning. If we have reason to think that the BIble is inspired, or even just tells us about God, we still need to understand in what sense it is inspired. It makes sense to start by look at how the various authors speak about their inspiration. Obviously a book that says "I am inerrant" may not be. But some of the Biblical authors do say or imply something about the sense in which they are inspired. We have prophets who seem to be claiming that God is speaking through them fairly directly, in some cases. (In others they describe what I'd call visions, but apparently in their own words.) We have Luke who speaks about investigating Jesus' life based on sources available to him. And we have Paul, who seems to say that the Lord has given him some information, but that other things he says are his own opinion.

I think these statements are relevant when we try to understand how the Bible works. We may conclude that the authors were wrong. They may have lied, or they may have misunderstood how God was using them. After all, most people think there were false prophets who made the same claims. But it's still relevant to know in what sense the authors thought they were inspired.

I don't think that what the Bible says about itself supports the idea that the whole thing is inerrant, although parts may be. The arguments that it is ignore some statements by the authors, and interpret others in misleading ways. But I don't fault people for looking at what the Bible says about itself.

TY leslie, you put into words what I am feeling. "Theology" might be a little strong. I think there are many possible theologies found in the bible, which probably reflect the differences in all our denominations. But, certainly "spiritual truth" or the foundation of theology is abundant in the inspired bible.

I do find the bible to be inspired, but I certainly do not think it is factual in the historical, scientific or political sense. For example, some Christians say we should support socialistic governments because the early Christians in Acts resembled socialists. Then others say we should be capitalists, and they cite supporting scripture.

I think it is at least a two step process. After reading the bible, a Christian develops values. The values then need to be translated individually into a personal philosophy. I think many differing philosophies are possible, but the basic values are eternal.

This is different than some Christians who would argue that the bible says it, take it exactly as you read it. There are problems with this approach. First we live in different times and the application of specific ideas found in the bible is applicable to their time. Second, the bible does not address all situations, therefore we need to come up with some kind of a intermediary value system to apply inspired biblical principles to our situation. Third, there is the whole context, not to mention the problems with the hidden agendas of the translators.

For example, homosexuality is identified as wrong in the bible. Some Christians argue that that is the end of it. Others may argue that the underlying value is that people need to be either celibate or monogamous. If monogamy is the primary principle, then you could still obey the underlying value expressed in the bible by staying in a monogamous homosexual relationship.

Please do not misunderstand, I am not advocating homosexuality, I am only trying to give an example of using inspired values as an intermediary.

The same concept can be applied to God the creator of the universe. God does not really need to be the creator of the actual universe, he really only needs to be the creator of my universe. I think any Christian who experiences the Holy Spirit pretty much believes that God is the center of his or her universe.




In another vein, there was a time in Israel when the Babylonians invaded and took over. At that time the Jewish theology was under a major attack. That attack was far more significant than anything we are experiencing today, in Christianity. The Jews lived under the covenant. There were the chosen people of God, The God, and the Land. The Land was critical to the covenant. The Babylonians took the Land. Talk about catastrophe. The covenant appeared to be over, many thought there was never any God. It was at that time that Jeremiah wrote about the new covenant that will be written on men's hearts...

The point is the pressure of having their covenant seemingly destroyed forced a very major change, a vital change in the theology of the Israelites. This change opened the door for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

My point is, all this talk about infallibility, creationism vs. Big Bang, etc. is a small conflict by comparison. Conflicts like this provide the necessary stimulation and energy to change and improve a religion's theology. Liberal Christianity is one form of change, the emerging church is another.

Grumpy Old Man,

Just a quick note here, I am really pushed for time today. Concerning your desire for prophecy clarification and the doubts found in science verses Bible in this area. I have a link for you that directly addresses the Ezekiel prophecy of Tyre: http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_1_02_Udd_EzekielTyreProphecy.pdf
I hope this link works but if not just search for PREDICTION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE IN EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY AGAINST TYRE by Kris J. Udd
The main point is God is not a fortune teller but rather will accomplish what He desires and this article may open up an entirely new view and understanding of how biblical prophecy works.

One of the issues several years ago concerning biblical accuracy in historiography was the Hittite people spoken of in the Bible. Archeological digs found Hattushash (the modern Boghazkoy in upper Asia Minor) that was the capital of the Hittite Empire and was the dominant force in the ancient Near East throughout most of the Late Bronze Period. This is just one example of how archeology has verified the biblical accuracy. My contention is, if we find things that are seemingly contradictive or or untrue in the Bible, we have not studied hard enough or looked long enough. There is a plethora of archeological support for biblical accuracy, not all of the archeological finds call into doubt the accuracy of the Bible.

You did not respond to my last post and that is fine, I just want to make sure you read it. If I don't get back on before Christmas, I wish you a happy Christmas. I know you struggle and I want you also to know I pray for you in your battle.

One other note. We really should not be forcing "scientific analysis" on the bible for purposes of supporting or denying the inspiration of the bible. Science if fun if you are doing literary criticism, or archeology, but it is really inappropriate for a religious support or atheistic attack of the bible. I will give two examples:

1) fire makes water boil. I tested this by putting a pot of water over a fire. After awhile, the water boiled. This is a form of a scientific test, maybe not very sophisticated, but science.

2) According to the theory of Communism, the Russian government in 1970 should have been asked, "why has your government not yet dissolved and spread equality to the masses?" (communist theory posited that first there would be a revolution, followed by a period of leadership by the people, followed by a period of diminished government or no government where all people were equal.

The communist would have replied, "it has not happened yet because of various factors, but the premise is still true, and I am sure it will happen sometime.

Scientific investigation comes to conclusions. Theories are supported or refuted. Religion does not come to conclusions. Religious "theories" are never rejected, they are only supported. When a religious tenet gets into real trouble it gets re-interpreted in a more palatable manner.

It is impossible by definition to falsify a person's religion. Religious thought does change over time with changing circumstances. But, true believers will always figure out a way to support their position. It is the nature of the beast.

So, currently some Christians defend the bible with the fundamentalist approach. For example, they try to support creationism with intelligent design. Others go the liberal route and accept science and view the bible as limited to spiritual truth of the relationship of God and His people. The new, appealing emerging church route is another direction.

Disproving the bible will never actually happen. It it not a scientific animal and it will not behave like one.

I suspected you would never bother to even read those sites I linked, but I linked them anyway so you weren't just getting my own opinions on prophecy, but the opinions of others too. What your little image above shows is that you are quite happy to make a bold claim - the Bible accurately predicts future events - but you are not willing to see evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Your comments here are based entirely upon the assumption that I am unaware of the "evidence to the contrary" concerning Bible prophecy. In fact, I am aware of the "evidence" and find it thoroughly biased and unconvincing.

So I was basically right in saying your earlier post was drivel. I actually changed that later as I didn't want to cause offence, but you must have started replying before the change got posted. Oh well. In a way you did strike a nerve, not because you made me doubt my own position, but because you have stated nothing that hasn't been argued before and refuted by more learned people than myself.

Click to expand...

And here we see the basic problem: You are absolutely convinced you are right and can point to scholars, to people "more learned than yourself," in support of your position. I can do the very same thing - and have. We both are equally convinced of our views and so this thread really amounts to nothing more than fortification and defense of our respective positions. You aren't really exploring Christianity, which is the purpose of this particular forum; it seems all you actually want to do is tell us why you apostasized - perhaps in the hopes of encouraging others to do the same.

You actually stated in your earlier post that one of your reasons for believing the Bible was because it said it was the Word of God. Now you are trying to deny this. It's there on the internet for all to see.

Click to expand...

No, I did not. You asserted that my only reason for holding to inerrancy was the result of circular logic and when I showed you that this wasn't the case, you picked out a single point from my line of reasoning and tried to make it sound like it was the only point I had. What's more, you mistook the point completely.

I wrote:

"4. The Bible claims divine inspiration and inerrancy."

Immediately, you jumped on this point and asserted that I was guilty of circular reasoning. You wrote:

"And so does the Qur'an. Also, you got on at me for stating Christians use circular reasoning, and here you are confirming what I said earlier. You're using circular reasoning right here; the Bible claims divine inspiration so it must be true."

What is point 4? Is it the conclusion to my line of reasoning? NO. Does it say what you declare that it says: "the Bible claims divine inspiration so it must be true"? NO. Let's compare:

Me: "The Bible claims divine inspiration and inerrancy."
You: "The Bible claims divine inspiration so it must be true."

I don't know about you, but I'm sure the rest of us can see that these two statements are not the same. My statement in point 4 declares only the fact of the Bible's claim about itself; it makes no conclusions about it for or against. Your statement, however, declares a conclusion based upon the Bible's claim: "so it must be true." Do you see the difference yet?

What was my conclusion about biblical inerrancy and how did I arrive at it? I wrote:

"5. Therefore, the Bible, having sufficient proof of its divine origin, can be trusted when it says it is inerrant."

What is the "sufficient proof" I speak of in point 5 of my line of reasoning? Is it the Bible's claim about itself in point 4? NO. My sufficient proof is given in point 2:

"a. Fulfilled prophecy.
b. Incredible thematic unity despite being written over 1500 years by 40 different people on 3 different continents in 3 different languages.
c. Survivability and popularity.
d. Historical/archaeological/cultural accuracy.
e. Profound impact upon societies and cultures."

It is quite obvious, then, that my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is not arrived at through circular logic. Quite the opposite. Now, you may not agree that my sufficient proof is actually sufficient, but that is an issue completely separate from the charge of circular reasoning.

There is more archaeological evidence proving the claims of the Qur'an than there is proving the claims of the Bible. The Bible is not superior in any way. Both deal with war, the subjugation of religious and cultural enemies, the poor treatment of women, death and punishment for unbelievers, etc, in virtually the same way. They are both products of a less morally intelligent world.

Click to expand...

Only someone who has not actually carefully and thoughtfully read the Bible would make this kind of characterization of it. I would strongly urge you to read Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the God of the Old Testament." He provides excellent argument against reading the OT as superficially as you seem to have done.

As for comparing archaeological evidence, well, I am not content to simply take your word, biased as it so obviously is, as to which religious text is more archaeologically accurate. I would note, though, that OT events and peoples written of in the OT predate Islam by many centuries, so it seems to me inappropriate to make comparisons between the two archaeologically. In any case, as I said, the Bible has been found frequently to be correct historically when it was initially thought to be in error. People's, places and events at first only found to be recorded in the Bible have been many times later discovered to be accurate. The link I gave you lists a bunch of such discoveries.

Nice Google quotes you found there. Sadly, academic support of the Bible's divine and inerrant status is in the minority these days. If there was sufficient evidence to believe the Bible's claims the academic world would acknowledge that. You probably believe that Satan is deceiving everyone though. That's a lot of work for one devil.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. You know what they say about making assumptions, don't you?

You picked Christianity because you were either converted by another Christian or your parents were Christian or you had some other Christian influence.

Click to expand...

You are so quick to make assumptions! Wow! It seems a lot of your thinking makes these assumptive leaps. In fact, I am a Christian because God drew me to Himself. No one is truly a Christian merely by association or culture. The Bible makes this crystal clear.

Most religious people in Muslim countries are Muslim. Most people choosing a religion in a Christian country will become Christian.

Click to expand...

I like how you worded the above statements. Very telling, I think. All people in Muslim countries (except visitors, of course) are religious. It is a matter of life and death not to be! But this is not the case in a secular culture like we have in Canada. Where I live, people are actually able to freely choose what they wish to believe. Comparing the two countries, then, doesn't really work, does it? THese days people in Canada are as likely to choose to be agnostic as they are Christian. And if people in Canada do want to be religious, I'm not sure Christianity is at the top of the pile of choices.

Also, just because a religion is gaining converts does not prove that that religion is true.

Click to expand...

Did I say that it did?

It seems that the better educated a society is, the less they are likely to turn to religion for answers.

Click to expand...

Better educated? I think not. The vocabulary of the average "educated" person in North America is several thousands of words short of their educated predecessors of two or three hundred years ago. There is an increase in the body of knowledge available to people today, but by no means are they better educated. In fact, at least in North America, there are growing concerns about the very poor level of education that is being offered even at the post-secondary level. I have worked as a high school teacher and know first-hand how poorly high schoolers have been taught to think. Basic reasoning skills and rules of logic are completely unknown to the average student in a Canadian high school. It is not education that is turning people away from the faith.

Selah.

It's good to see you start this thread! You've been thinking. I encourage that. First off, let me point out Scripture states "not many rich are called." Couple that with PhD tipping his hand (just in these short quotes) that he is not a believer, (right?) and contrast that with the fact that neither Jesus nor any of His Disciples were scholars, and you have the proper frame for this discussion.

Grumpy Old Man said:

a person with a PhD in New Testament Studies invited people to ask questions. This person was asked a question involving the literal interpretation of scripture v scientific evidence for evolution. PhD replied with this;

Someone then asked why an imperfect being, inspired by God, would not be able to create something perfect. PhD answered;

Click to expand...

Ick. Our quote function doesn't preserve context and I can't see PhD's comments, which I'd like to address. He arrives at an ok conclusion, but he gets there via all the wrong thinking. His hearing is not mixed with Faith. Spiritually, that's a deadly combination.

"I've heard Christians give prophecies that failed miserably (I've given a few myself and at the time I believed I was empowered by God's presence)."

No you haven't. This is the working definition of the difference between being sent (anointed) and someone who just went.

"If you read the Bible, it is not just a book about God, it is a book about sinful humans trying to relate to God."

It is neither. "Religion" is people trying to reach up to G-d. The Bible records G-d's POV, as He establishes His Covenant with mankind. He shows us how we can partake of that Blessing.

"NO HUMAN IN THE BIBLE IS EVER DESCRIBED AS PERFECT!!!"

False. I'm working out of State and don't have access to my usual resources, but you're going on bad info.

"When you read the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, and all the prophets, you are reading stories about humans that the Bible freely admits are not perfect. In fact, some of the stories in the Bible go fairly in depth about the moral failings of its subjects."

You're missing a MAJOR component of Scripture, that I would have hoped you would recognize by now. The Bible doesn't merely "freely admit" humanity; it puts it under a magnifying glass, and PROVES G-d works within our failings. I'm surprised you can't place the operative phrase here, "His strength is made perfect in my weakness."

"And yet we are supposed to believe that somehow, these imperfect humans magically penned a perfect Scripture."

The word you're looking for is "anointing," not magic. You know, as in "touch not mine anointed and do my Prophet no harm." You've come a long way in this regard since you first showed up, btw. I appreciate that.

"So isn't it better to see the Bible as a collection of books written by sinful humans "as a way to express their devotion to God", rather than the literal and inerrant Word of God?"

False dichotomy. Scripture is neither, but it is one medium via which G-d can communicate to us.

Faulty said:

Then to claim that the prophets were postulating their own theories on their conception of God is contrary to the fact that they often didn't have a clue what they were writing about. Being parrots, saying what they had heard, they did not have the understanding of these things as they would have had the origin been their own reasoning as they are frequently accused of, rather they searched and inquired carefully what they heard to understand it.

PhD is using his own reasoning to determine an answer he can accept, but if he starts with the way the scripture says these prophets spoke, all his subsequent imaginings evaporate into the breeze.

Click to expand...

GOM, you should read this and really take it to heart!

Grumpy Old Man said:

You basically have to ignore everything of a scientific nature in order to keep up the pretence that the Bible is true in everything.

Click to expand...

No, you don't. We've been through this many many times. Your last few responses before this one are equally closed-minded. You should try to work past that.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Jude and Paul make mention of Hebrew scriptures that are not found in the Canon. If God inspired these writers, why did the Church not include other works into the Bible? Ultimately it was men who decided which books were God inspired enough to include into the Canon. I suppose you're going to say that these people were miraculously God-inspired too. If they were, I guess God must have changed his mind during the Reformation then because the Protestants changed to their own Canon.

Click to expand...

You're sliding downhill fast. This is a foolish argument, which makes you unlearned and unstable. You argue along these lines to your own destruction. That would be, you know, something to avoid

Canon is what was read in Church, as part of Liturgical worship. Nothing more, nothing less. (Except for the inclusion of Rev)

Here is a set of teaching videos, giving valid hermeneutics for Genesis 1:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7638220/

Post #1. I suggest you skip the first 4 and go straight to #5, which is more in-depth, and a series of 6. No, it's not a Uni education, but it is from a PhD who teaches at that level. A valid quote: "a literal interpretation would mean understanding it the way it was originally meant. That IS taking it literally."

And this is quite different from anything I've seen discussed here. You'll find it interesting!

The quote at the bottom of my profile is from one of my favorite apologists Dr. William Lane Craig:

I am an inerrantist. However, let's assume the Bible is not inerrant for the sake of the unbelieving questioner. Does errancy necessarily reduce to a fact of nothing being accurately known from Scripture? Moreover, inerrancy does not guarantee that all of Scripture can be known accurately. There are portions that remain difficult and not fully understood. I believe these things to be fully resolved in the mind of God, hence my inerrantist view.

My view as an inerrantist is coupled with my knowledge that my understanding is not.

Hey, here's a name you'll recognize:

"What would it mean to find a NT manuscript that was written while witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were still alive?

This may have happened as indicated by Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Part of he article reads (please be sure to read his article and the other links below):
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these papyri might mean.
On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment....
I'm very interested in hearing more about this find of part of Mark's gospel when the details are published in about a year's time."

Somehow the links didn't survive our quote function, so here's the link to the OP that has them:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637967/#post59972133

razeontherock said:

Hey, here's a name you'll recognize:

"What would it mean to find a NT manuscript that was written while witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were still alive?

This may have happened as indicated by Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Part of he article reads (please be sure to read his article and the other links below):
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these papyri might mean.
On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment....
I'm very interested in hearing more about this find of part of Mark's gospel when the details are published in about a year's time."

Somehow the links didn't survive our quote function, so here's the link to the OP that has them:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7637967/#post59972133

Click to expand...

Very nice, and cool, guess I will be waiting a year to see. Ty for the update.