Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

trophy33 · Jul 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
I do not call that "error". I call it perspective. I call it narrative, witness, account.

But it is, technically, an error.

ARBITER01 · 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/

The historical accounts in the gospels can be different amongst the writers. Translation errors can create other issues also, but I've not seen any book in the NT at least, that contradicted another.

I think academia is more the problem here.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
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?

I believe the Synoptic Problem—the inconsistencies among the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)—has been recognised and addressed in various ways over the centuries. Like you, I don’t see it as an insurmountable issue.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

ARBITER01 said:
The historical accounts in the gospels can be different amongst the writers. Translation errors can create other issues also, but I've not seen any book in the NT at least, that contradicted another.

I think academia is more the problem here.

There is a problem between the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels concerning the Passover and the days of unleavened bread.

Clare73 · Jul 5, 2025

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

Except in jusification. . .which is a declaration of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal, a pronouncement of sinlessness.

Justification is a state of sinlessness, not a state of "righteousness," which must then be imputed (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to those declared sinless in justification.

Clare73 · Jul 5, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
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?

Did all the parties arrive at the same time? Did anyone go twice?

Akita Suggagaki said:
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?

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

Clare73 said:
Except in jusification. . .which is a declaration of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal, a pronouncement of sinlessness.

Justification is a state of sinlessness, not a state of "righteousness," which must then be imputed (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to those declared sinless in justification.

This is off topic.

Clare73 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
We've been over this before and the above post adds nothing to previous discussion which ended in frustrating stonewall posts from you. I am not willing to do it yet again.

Where Scripture makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.

Joseph G · 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/

James 1:22-25
"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does."

Those who hunger for His Word and study it diligently along with prayer - put His Word into action - and thereby have no doubt in the Bible's inerrancy, infallibity, or divine inspiration - as they see Him backing up every revelation, and keeping every single promise made to themselves and others throughout their walk here.

This is no new phenomenon. It's been the experience of every Bible-believing Spirit-filled Christian since Pentecost.

Be blessed.
biblegateway.com

ARBITER01 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
There is a problem between the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels concerning the Passover and the days of unleavened bread.

I doubt there really is a problem with the gospel accounts, but a supposed problem tends to develop from a differing historical understanding. In other words, scholars are not correct on when or what time the Passover was celebrated during the time of Jesus versus how it is done nowadays.

RandyPNW · 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/

Good subject. I attended Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA in the late 70s, a great church that invited diverse ministries and also had a school of theology. Sadly, in the short time I was there the church "blew up," apparently when Pastor Wilkerson required of the professors that they subscribe to a very strict statement on the inerrancy of Scriptures. A good many professors left, thinking that there was no "wiggle room" in describing "inerrancy."

I also have this problem because the authors of Scripture were themselves fallible and prone to error. They could certainly pass on truth despite their proneness to error. But does that mean they couldn't fail to cross a "t" or dot an "i?" I don't know, but I certainly couldn't say dogmatically that they used correct Hebrew or Greek 100% of the time! I certainly would not subscribe to the extremes of Kabbalism with respect to its numerological meanings, for example.

I think it's safest to say that the specific truths of the Bible were conveyed faithfully and accurately without stating that the authors did so in a "perfect way." It is for this reason that Jesus called to himself 12 apostles, to convey to them over a period of time through repetititon and explanation the very truths he wished for them to convey to the world and to have recorded for future generations.

Incidentally, Melodyland survived its "blow up." But it illustrates the difficulty of this subject. I agree with the author that "inerrancy" has more to do with being able to trust in the truthfulness of the revelations being conveyed than in 100% "automatic writing" ability by the authors.

At least that is my view. The important thing is to trust in revelations that condemn modern immorality and false religion, or for that matter deviations from Scriptures in any way that puts contempary culture ahead of biblical morality.

ARBITER01 · Jul 5, 2025

RandyPNW said:
I think it's safest to say that the specific truths of the Bible were conveyed faithfully and accurately without stating that the authors did so in a "perfect way." It is for this reason that Jesus called to himself 12 apostles, to convey to them over a period of time through repetititon and explanation the very truths he wished for them to convey to the world and to have recorded for future generations.

There are differences in the gospel accounts from the authors. Jesus maybe spoke from a mountain in one and then spoke from a valley in the other, but having 4 differing accounts gives us a wide range of truths from our Lord, which, from what I can see, have no contradictions between them.

We are deeply indebted to Luke for his thoroughness.

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 5, 2025

Clare73 said:
Did all the parties arrive at the same time? Did anyone go twice?

What do the Gospels say? Or do you want to add to them?

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

ARBITER01 said:
I doubt there really is a problem with the gospel accounts, but a supposed problem tends to develop from a differing historical understanding. In other words, scholars are not correct on when or what time the Passover was celebrated during the time of Jesus versus how it is done nowadays.

Read them and see how you go explaining it ...

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

By the way, the Jews today are not the same as the Jews of Jesus day, no sacrifices, no temple, Rabbis and no priests ...

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 5, 2025

trophy33 said:
But it is, technically, an error.

Yes, but at this point what do we do. Hold them both in doubt? Choose one or the other to be more true? Try to reconcile them as an inerrentist might? I think the best thing to do is to enter into the world of the narrative as best we can. When in John go with it as is. Same with Mark.

Gregory Thompson · Jul 5, 2025

Why does it matter? I recall a number of situations where the inerrancy of scripture was what people relied on to be saved. Like it was impossible to believe in Jesus based on knowing Jesus from Him indwelling you.

To situations like that, it might be a matter of life or death.

Fervent · Jul 5, 2025

The doctrine of inerrancy has several fatal flaws that make it untenable, or at least an irrelevant question. The first is, we don't have the documents the author's of the Bible wrote. As far as I am aware, no mainstream theologian affirms that there have not been scribal errors and other material defects to the Biblical corpus. So who cares if the autographs were inerrant or not? We have to deal with the texts we have today, which are riddled with errors of various kinds and denying as much simply gives a place for critics to seize hold of and unjustly attack the faith.

While what traditional authorities have thought about the Bible is important, their opinions are subject to the knowledge of their day and so the idea of inerrancy may have been more sustainable. Today, it's not. Various physical evidences provide serious challenges to what is written in the Biblical texts and comparable ancient literature raises questions about authorial concerns about issues of facticity vs modern concerns about such things.

For Protestants, it is a major hurdle to overcome because of doctine like Sola Scriptura and the sui generis nature of the Bible. But the solution is in Orthodoxy's view of Scripture-in-tradition where what makes Scripture important is not its factual accuracy or its immaculate character but its status as canonical documents. While I may lean on that in a manner in which many Orthodox do not, the notion of inerrancy and the problem of a Bible that is not inerrant largely vaporizes because its authority does not rest in the perfection of the texts but because it serves as an Icon of the perfect Word of God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son of God.

ARBITER01 · Jul 5, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
Read them and see how you go explaining it ...

Like I already said, I don't think there is a problem with the text other than people possibly misunderstanding the time period involved with the Passover, though I haven't looked to see what possible variants are available in the section of text.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 5, 2025

ARBITER01 said:
Like I already said, I don't think there is a problem with the text other than people possibly misunderstanding the time period involved with the Passover, though I haven't looked to see what possible variants are available in the section of text.

okay

Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

Well-Known Member

Legend

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

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

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

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

Blood-bought

Saved and sustained by the grace of Jesus Christ

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

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

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Legend

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

Similar threads