Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

Michie · Jul 5, 2025

In the 1980s and ’90s, a controversy swirled within the Evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy. A common claim during that time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was an innovation of late nineteenth-century Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not believe the Bible to be without error, but only “infallible.” It was a distinction that made a big difference. The Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but not without error in other areas, such as science or history.

Though the word “inerrancy” may have been new, the idea was not. How the Early Church fathers described Scripture sounds exactly like what the Princeton theologians meant by inerrancy. The same, in fact, can also be said about medieval, Reformation, and even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism.

The attack on the idea of biblical inerrancy 40 years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment. Once reason and science were elevated as the primary arbitrators of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims about miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science required assuming that the Bible was not reporting literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/inerrancy-under-attack-again/

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

Michie said:
In the 1980s and ’90s, a controversy swirled within the Evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy. A common claim during that time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was an innovation of late nineteenth-century Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not believe the Bible to be without error, but only “infallible.” It was a distinction that made a big difference. The Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but not without error in other areas, such as science or history.

Though the word “inerrancy” may have been new, the idea was not. How the Early Church fathers described Scripture sounds exactly like what the Princeton theologians meant by inerrancy. The same, in fact, can also be said about medieval, Reformation, and even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism.

The attack on the idea of biblical inerrancy 40 years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment. Once reason and science were elevated as the primary arbitrators of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims about miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science required assuming that the Bible was not reporting literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/inerrancy-under-attack-again/

Out of curiosity I ran the text through an AI to see if it was consistent with Catholic teaching, I was sure it wasn't entirely consistent, and this is what it said:

The passage you shared aligns with Catholic teaching in some respects but also requires careful nuance to be fully consistent with the Church’s doctrine on biblical inerrancy.

✅ What’s Consistent with Catholic Teaching

Inerrancy is not a modern invention: The Catholic Church affirms that the belief in the Bible’s inerrancy is not a 19th-century innovation. From the Early Church Fathers through the medieval period and into the modern era, the Church has consistently taught that Scripture is inspired by God and therefore free from error.
The Enlightenment’s impact on biblical authority: The passage rightly notes that Enlightenment rationalism and the rise of historical-critical methods led many to question the supernatural elements of Scripture, including miracles and the historicity of Genesis. The Church has acknowledged this tension and responded to it in various magisterial documents.

⚠️ What Needs Clarification

Distinction between “inerrancy” and “infallibility”: The passage suggests that earlier Christians believed the Bible was “infallible” in matters of faith and practice but not “inerrant” in history or science. This distinction is not consistent with Catholic teaching. The Church teaches plenary inerrancy, meaning that Scripture is free from error in all that the sacred authors affirm, not just in matters of faith and morals.
As Dei Verbum (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) states:

“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (DV 11)

Click to expand...

While this has sometimes been interpreted narrowly, the traditional Catholic understanding—as reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu—is that inspiration and inerrancy extend to all parts of Scripture, including historical and scientific references, insofar as they are part of what the sacred author intended to affirm.
Modern debates within Catholicism: Some post-Vatican II interpretations have tried to limit inerrancy to “salvific truths,” but this has been controversial. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been asked to clarify this point, and many theologians argue that such a limitation is inconsistent with the Church’s historical teaching.

Summary

The passage is broadly aligned with Catholic teaching in affirming the historical continuity of belief in Scripture’s truth and in critiquing Enlightenment skepticism. However, it risks inconsistency with Catholic doctrine if it implies that the Bible can contain errors in non-theological matters. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is wholly inspired and wholly inerrant, not just in spiritual matters but in everything the sacred authors intended to affirm.

Would you like a brief comparison between Catholic and Evangelical views on inerrancy?

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Q: Is Bible inerrant, objectively, without religious bias? One word answer.

AI answer: No.

Q: Is the Roman Catholic church right about the biblical inerrancy? One word answer.

AI answer: No.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
Q: Is Bible inerrant, objectively, without religious bias? One word answer.

AI answer: No.

Q: Is the Roman Catholic church right about the biblical inerrancy? One word answer.

AI answer: No.

I see, interesting. I ran the post through an AI and the response is this:

Thanks for your thoughtful question, <Xeno>. Let’s unpack whether those one-word AI answers—“No” to both questions—are likely or just a bit too blunt for such nuanced theological terrain.

Question 1: Is the Bible inerrant, objectively, without religious bias?

AI Answer: “No”

That’s a strong claim—and a controversial one. Here's why it's unlikely to be a universally accepted or “objective” AI answer:

Inerrancy is a theological doctrine, not a purely empirical claim. It depends on presuppositions about divine inspiration, the nature of truth, and the authority of Scripture.
Many Christian traditions affirm inerrancy—especially evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church (with some nuance). To say “No” outright ignores this broad consensus within religious frameworks.
Objectivity without religious bias is a tricky standard. From a secular academic standpoint, one might question inerrancy due to textual variants, historical-critical methods, or scientific discrepancies. But from within a theological worldview, inerrancy is often affirmed precisely because of religious commitments.

So, a more nuanced AI response might be:

“Depends on your epistemological framework. From a secular-critical standpoint, no. From a theological standpoint, many say yes.”

⛪ Question 2: Is the Roman Catholic Church right about biblical inerrancy?

AI Answer: “No”

Again, this is a sweeping dismissal that doesn’t reflect the Church’s actual position or the complexity of the issue:

The Catholic Church teaches plenary inerrancy—that Scripture is without error in all that God intended to convey for the sake of our salvation (cf. Dei Verbum 11, CCC 107).
Some Catholic theologians interpret this narrowly (limited inerrancy), while others hold to a more expansive view (absolute inerrancy).
The Church’s position is not easily dismissed as “wrong” without engaging its theological rationale, which includes divine authorship, inspiration, and the magisterium’s interpretive authority.

So, a more accurate AI response might be:

“The Catholic Church affirms inerrancy in matters pertaining to salvation. Whether that’s ‘right’ depends on one’s theological commitments.”

Verdict

Those one-word answers—“No” and “No”—are overly reductive and unlikely to reflect a well-informed or balanced AI response, especially from a model trained to consider multiple perspectives. They ignore the theological, historical, and philosophical dimensions that make these questions so rich—and so contested.

Would you like to explore how different Christian traditions nuance their views on inerrancy? Or perhaps how inerrancy interacts with literary genres and historical criticism?

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
Thanks for your thoughtful question, <Xeno>.

If you are logged into some kind of AI account, you will probably never get answers you might get as an anonymous user. Similarly with google or youtube services etc.

AI tries to be nuanced and verbose, by default. Because it is programmed to be inclusive and not to offend anybody. You must sometimes force it to give some clear judgement/conclusion, for example saying it must be in one word.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
If you are logged into some kind of AI account, you will probably never get answers you might get as an anonymous user. Similarly with google or youtube services etc.

AI tries to be nuanced, by default. Because it is programmed to be inclusive and not to offend anybody. You must sometimes force it to give clear answer, for example saying it must be in one word.

That may be true, I cannot say. Shall I ask the AI?

Here is what is says about your statement.

Great question, <Xeno>. I can absolutely respond to that statement — and I’m glad you brought it up, because it touches on some common assumptions about how AI works and how platforms personalise responses.

Let’s unpack it a bit:

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."

This is partly true, but not in the way it might sound conspiratorial. Here’s what’s really going on:

Personalisation vs. Anonymity: When you're logged in, some AI systems (like me) can tailor responses based on your preferences, past interactions, or saved memory — if you've chosen to allow that. This can make answers more relevant or helpful, not necessarily more censored.
Consistency, not censorship: The goal isn’t to hide information from logged-in users, but to provide continuity and context. If you’ve asked about theology, humour, or Australian culture before, I might lean into those themes more with you than with someone else.
Anonymous ≠ unfiltered: Even anonymous users get responses shaped by the same safety and quality guidelines. Logging out doesn’t suddenly unlock a secret vault of forbidden knowledge.

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."

That’s largely accurate — and it’s by design:

Nuance is a feature, not a flaw: In a world full of complexity, nuance helps avoid oversimplification. It’s not about dodging the truth — it’s about acknowledging that many questions don’t have one-size-fits-all answers.
Inclusivity matters: AI is built to be useful to people from all walks of life. That means avoiding language that could be harmful, misleading, or inflammatory. It’s not about being bland — it’s about being responsible.
You can still ask for clarity: If you want a one-word answer, a binary choice, or a bold opinion, you can absolutely ask for it. I’m happy to oblige — just like you might ask a friend to “cut to the chase.”

Bottom line?

AI isn’t hiding the truth behind a login screen. It’s trying to be helpful, responsible, and context-aware. If you want blunt, bold, or black-and-white answers, just say so — and I’ll meet you there.

Would you like to test that theory with a one-word challenge? Or maybe throw me a question where you want a no-nuance, straight-up answer?

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
That may be true, I cannot say. Shall I ask the AI?

Here is what is says about your statement.

Great question, <Xeno>. I can absolutely respond to that statement — and I’m glad you brought it up, because it touches on some common assumptions about how AI works and how platforms personalise responses.

Let’s unpack it a bit:

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."

This is partly true, but not in the way it might sound conspiratorial. Here’s what’s really going on:

Personalisation vs. Anonymity: When you're logged in, some AI systems (like me) can tailor responses based on your preferences, past interactions, or saved memory — if you've chosen to allow that. This can make answers more relevant or helpful, not necessarily more censored.

Consistency, not censorship: The goal isn’t to hide information from logged-in users, but to provide continuity and context. If you’ve asked about theology, humour, or Australian culture before, I might lean into those themes more with you than with someone else.

Anonymous ≠ unfiltered: Even anonymous users get responses shaped by the same safety and quality guidelines. Logging out doesn’t suddenly unlock a secret vault of forbidden knowledge.

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."

That’s largely accurate — and it’s by design:

Nuance is a feature, not a flaw: In a world full of complexity, nuance helps avoid oversimplification. It’s not about dodging the truth — it’s about acknowledging that many questions don’t have one-size-fits-all answers.

Inclusivity matters: AI is built to be useful to people from all walks of life. That means avoiding language that could be harmful, misleading, or inflammatory. It’s not about being bland — it’s about being responsible.

You can still ask for clarity: If you want a one-word answer, a binary choice, or a bold opinion, you can absolutely ask for it. I’m happy to oblige — just like you might ask a friend to “cut to the chase.”

Bottom line?

AI isn’t hiding the truth behind a login screen. It’s trying to be helpful, responsible, and context-aware. If you want blunt, bold, or black-and-white answers, just say so — and I’ll meet you there.

Would you like to test that theory with a one-word challenge? Or maybe throw me a question where you want a no-nuance, straight-up answer?

Thanks for the confirmation of what I was saying.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
Thanks for the confirmation of what I was saying.

I do not have a dog in the AI race. Thanks for your contribution.

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
I do not have a dog in the AI race. Thanks for your contribution.

It is not about AI race, but about how AI works. At least now.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
This sounds quite random.

why? It's just what I typed. No weirdness about it. but are you suggesting something in your response?

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Q: Which denomination is right, the Roman Catholic or the protestant churches. Answer in max 3 words.

A: "Neither is completely right."

Q: "These are four words."

A: "Neither completely right."

:scratch:

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
Q: Which denomination is right, the Roman Catholic or the protestant churches. Answer in max 3 words.

A: "Neither is completely right."

That's wrong!
The Catholic church is completely right

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
That's wrong!
The Catholic church is completely right

Q: Is the statement "The Catholic church is completely right" true?

A: No, that statement is not true. No single religious institution or denomination has a monopoly on absolute religious truth. Religious beliefs involve complex theological interpretations, and reasonable people can have different perspectives on faith and doctrine.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
Q: Is the statement "The Catholic church is completely right" true?

A: No, that statement is not true. No single religious institution or denomination has a monopoly on absolute religious truth. Religious beliefs involve complex theological interpretations, and reasonable people can have different perspectives on faith and doctrine.

I'd sack your AI, it's biased

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
While this has sometimes been interpreted narrowly, the traditional Catholic understanding—as reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu—is that inspiration and inerrancy extend to all parts of Scripture, including historical and scientific references, insofar as they are part of what the sacred author intended to affirm.

I don't think that is an accurate account of Divino Afflante Spiritu..

The document advocates for acceptance of modern scripture study methods that will help to determine "to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation;"

11. There is no one who cannot easily perceive that the conditions of biblical studies and their subsidiary sciences have greatly changed within the last fifty years. For, apart from anything else, when Our Predecessor published the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, hardly a single place in Palestine had begun to be explored by means of relevant excavations. Now, however, this kind of investigation is much more frequent and, since more precise methods and technical skill have been developed in the course of actual experience, it gives us information at once more abundant and more accurate. How much light has been derived from these explorations for the more correct and fuller understanding of the Sacred Books all experts know, as well as all those who devote themselves to these studies. The value of these excavations is enhanced by the discovery from time to time of written documents, which help much towards the knowledge of the languages, letters, events, customs, and forms of worship of most ancient times. And of no less importance is papyri which have contributed so much to the knowledge of the discovery and investigation, so frequent in our times, of letters and institutions, both public and private, especially of the time of Our Savior.

32. There are, in fine, other books or texts, which contain difficulties brought to light only in quite recent times, since a more profound knowledge of antiquity has given rise to new questions, on the basis of which the point at issue may be more appropriately examined. Quite wrongly therefore do some pretend, not rightly understanding the conditions of biblical study, that nothing remains to be added by the Catholic exegete of our time to what Christian antiquity has produced; since, on the contrary, these our times have brought to light so many things, which call for a fresh investigation, and which stimulate not a little the practical zest of the present-day interpreter.

38. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.

39. When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text, which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.

Divino Afflante Spiritu (September 30, 1943) | PIUS XII

Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 30 September 1943

www.vatican.va

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

And now it is time to return to @Michie's topic, and maybe @Michie will tell me if the AI in Post #2 was right or not. I am inclined to think it is accurate but maybe not well suited to Christian Forums nuance. <slight grin>

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
I don't think that is an accurate account of Divino Afflante Spiritu..

The document advocates for acceptance of modern scripture study methods that will help to determine "to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation;"

It's a complicated field isn't it? My former priest would agree with the assessment but my archbishop may not. I like to be fairly docile but I also am not opposed to thinking and voicing alternative points of view. All in all I tend more towards the AI's assessment that the quoted material contained in the original post needs to be evaluated with caution; after all it is one point of view and the Church hasn't yet excluded the view expressed in it nor has it included it in her Dogmatic teaching.

PS: I ran my reply through the AI and it offered an alternative statement that was not too different but not in my voice, it was close, but ... here is what it offered:

"It’s a pretty complex area, isn’t it? My old priest would probably agree with that take, though I’m not sure my archbishop would see it the same way. I try to stay receptive and respectful, but I’m also not afraid to think things through and voice a different perspective when needed. On the whole, I lean towards the AI’s view—that the quote in the original post should be approached with a bit of caution. At the end of the day, it’s just one perspective, and the Church hasn’t formally ruled it in or out when it comes to Dogma."

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
It's a complicated field isn't it?

Yes, and the Catholic Church finds itself in a pickle. It wants to be consistent with its own historical pronouncements and yet it also wants to take into account the fruits of modern scripture critical study methods. What if those methods indicate something counter to those pronouncements? Well then we have some explaining to do.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
Yes, and the Catholic Church finds itself in a pickle. It wants to be consistent with its own historical pronouncements and yet it also wants to take into account the fruits of modern scripture critical study methods. What if those methods indicate something counter to those pronouncements? Well then we have some explaining to do.

Development of doctrine! :liturgy:

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 5, 2025

Maybe this is a good nugget. Is the Bible in error? Is John or Mark Correct? Was it still dark or did the sun rise? Was the stone still there or moved?

This sort of question is not an issue for me. I view each narrative in it's own context and do not look for exact historical accuracy. It is enough for me to know he is risen and these account written in different times and places vary in detail. So what? I do not call that "error". I call it perspective. I call it narrative, witness, account.

When was the empty tomb first discovered by Mary Magdalene?
It was after sunrise according to Mark 16:2, 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.

but John 20:1 said it was still dark. 20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.

but again n Mark 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?

Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

✅ What’s Consistent with Catholic Teaching​

⚠️ What Needs Clarification​

Summary​

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Question 1: Is the Bible inerrant, objectively, without religious bias?​

⛪ Question 2: Is the Roman Catholic Church right about biblical inerrancy?​

Verdict​

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."​

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."​

Bottom line?​

Well-Known Member

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."​

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."​

Bottom line?​

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

✅ What’s Consistent with Catholic Teaching

⚠️ What Needs Clarification

Summary

Question 1: Is the Bible inerrant, objectively, without religious bias?

⛪ Question 2: Is the Roman Catholic Church right about biblical inerrancy?

Verdict

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."

Bottom line?

"If you're logged into an AI account, you'll never get the same answers as an anonymous user."

"AI tries to be nuanced by default because it’s programmed to be inclusive and not offend anybody."

Bottom line?