Biblical inerrancy vs infallibility

[KimT]

What do you think of the stories in Genesis and Exodus?

Jesus used many parables to teach his followers. I think that God could have inspired the writers of the Bible to use parables to illustrate concepts and truths. Nobody can be sure but I believe that Jesus saved me and taught me how to live while I'm passing through. I know I was born with a sinful nature and I have faith that what Jesus said was true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't particularly find the idea of inerrancy very helpful. I think as an idea it comes from a fundamentally flawed approach to Holy Scripture.

Much ado is made in some circles to say that the original autographs are what are actually inspired, and thus the original autographs are entirely inerrant--copies, manuscripts, and translations are therefore not inerrant but we can be reasonably confident that the gist of the original inerrant and inspired autographs is preserved. A problem I have with that is that it, fundamentally, suggests that the Scriptures as we have them are not themselves the divinely inspired word of God but at best only copies of God's inspired word.

Conversely KJV-onlyism gets around this by sticking one's head in the ground, ignoring just about every known fact about the Bible and the transmission of the Bible through history and insisting that the 1611 AV is the one and only inspired and inerrant word of God (just don't let them know that they aren't reading the 1611 but the 1769 revision, or that the Deuterocanonicals were in the KJV from its first publication in 1611 until the late 19th century)

I think the fundamental flaw here in all this is a failure at grasping what the Scriptures are and what the Scriptures are for. The Bible is that collection of writings which, over the course of history, the Christian Church received and recognized as being inspired and important and thus to be read, out loud, within the context of the liturgy (Scripture readings) to benefit and build up the faith of the Faithful who were gathered there.

The very idea of the Canon was what was to be read in church, that is, during worship; that question is a long and complicated one. We can be fairly confident that in the beginning it was more-or-less "the Law and the Prophets", very probably the LXX. Though as Christianity came out of Judaism it also inherited Judaism's Scriptures, but the problem is that Judaism in the first century was neither a monolithic entity and even among the Pharisees there wasn't a rigidly defined Canon of Scripture. At the same time Christians were figuring out their Canon of Scripture Judaism was also figuring it out, and while obviously there was overlap between the two the roads toward Canonization were very different.

What does this mean? It means that while Judaism in the first several centuries of the Common Era concluded that Esther was Scripture, Christianity was not quite so certain on what to do with Esther, and further, there were two versions of Esther, Hebrew Esther and Greek Esther. Christians largely accepted Greek Esther in that it was the form of Esther found in the LXX, whereas Jews only accepted Hebrew Esther. And while I say Christians largely accepted Greek Esther, Esther's canonicity was hardly certain in the Church, for example St. Athanasius regarded Esther as non-canonical.

So the purpose of the Canon--that is, the purpose of the Bible--was to serve first and foremost as a canon of liturgically accepted writing, to be read for the edification of the Church. These Scriptures were holy and divinely inspired because through these the Church received and affirmed that God spoke His Word--Christ--to us. The Scriptures, therefore, are the vehicle through which the living and incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, meets us; and they are therefore God's word.

Because of this the Scriptures, even when translated, copied, etc remain the very word of God for us. Even when or where there are inconsistencies in the texts, even when or where there are historical or minor factual errors, even when or where the text hasn't been copied perfectly, or translated perfectly. The Word of God remains proclaimed to us through the Holy Scriptures because of what the Scriptures are for us: Means through which God delivers Jesus Christ to us as the Church to be build up in our faith and to turn us toward His Son in whom is found our redemption and our salvation, both now and in the age to come.

My problem, as you see, with inerrancy is that it misses the point of the Scriptures. It fails to understand the beauty and importance of the Bible as not merely a static word, but the dynamic, powerful, word of God that cuts through everything else to get to the heart of things: Jesus Christ the Living and Incarnate Word of God and His precious and holy Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lutherangerman]

The bible is a rather curious book. Much of Genesis, for example, contains text that can be read in very different ways. There is the outer level of the stories we know, but if you take the words in hebrew and look for alternate words that sound similar when spoken, you get multiple stories at once. And every word means something in the text. For example, the name Abram means "enormous wish". Sarai means "one who directs", and the name she got later, Sara, means "one who inspires". These are teachings for people who want to learn in life and become better persons. Because, it is bad to be a Sarai, someone who bosses others around, but it is much better to be a Sara, someone who inspires others. When Abraham stays at Gerar, this also has a meaning ... Gerar means "to chew through" ... so in a believer's life, there is time to rethink and remember what you know, to chew it through again. In that sense, every story in scripture has alternative meanings that may be more important than the first impression superficial story that we read at first. That's how the bible is supposed to teach us truth about life and it is more wisdom and devotional literature than plain records of sins and punishments as which they are normally read, unfortunately.

 

[Troy Rambo]

What do you think about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could punish Egypt with plagues - culminating in the death of every first born human or animal in Egypt? If that story was actual history then God is awful.

I have no idea how to answer this question. I wonder the same thing. Maybe God just had a plan and carried it out? I dont know.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have no idea how to answer this question. I wonder the same thing. Maybe God just had a plan and carried it out? I dont know.

Kudos for honesty

 

[cloudyday2]

The bible is a rather curious book. Much of Genesis, for example, contains text that can be read in very different ways. There is the outer level of the stories we know, but if you take the words in hebrew and look for alternate words that sound similar when spoken, you get multiple stories at once. And every word means something in the text. For example, the name Abram means "enormous wish". Sarai means "one who directs", and the name she got later, Sara, means "one who inspires". These are teachings for people who want to learn in life and become better persons. Because, it is bad to be a Sarai, someone who bosses others around, but it is much better to be a Sara, someone who inspires others. When Abraham stays at Gerar, this also has a meaning ... Gerar means "to chew through" ... so in a believer's life, there is time to rethink and remember what you know, to chew it through again. In that sense, every story in scripture has alternative meanings that may be more important than the first impression superficial story that we read at first. That's how the bible is supposed to teach us truth about life and it is more wisdom and devotional literature than plain records of sins and punishments as which they are normally read, unfortunately.

I guess the lack of vowels in their alphabet encourages this sort of speculation.

 

[cloudyday2]

Jesus used many parables to teach his followers. I think that God could have inspired the writers of the Bible to use parables to illustrate concepts and truths. Nobody can be sure but I believe that Jesus saved me and taught me how to live while I'm passing through. I know I was born with a sinful nature and I have faith that what Jesus said was true.

As long as it is working for you, I guess that is great.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't particularly find the idea of inerrancy very helpful. I think as an idea it comes from a fundamentally flawed approach to Holy Scripture.

Much ado is made in some circles to say that the original autographs are what are actually inspired, and thus the original autographs are entirely inerrant--copies, manuscripts, and translations are therefore not inerrant but we can be reasonably confident that the gist of the original inerrant and inspired autographs is preserved. A problem I have with that is that it, fundamentally, suggests that the Scriptures as we have them are not themselves the divinely inspired word of God but at best only copies of God's inspired word.

Conversely KJV-onlyism gets around this by sticking one's head in the ground, ignoring just about every known fact about the Bible and the transmission of the Bible through history and insisting that the 1611 AV is the one and only inspired and inerrant word of God (just don't let them know that they aren't reading the 1611 but the 1769 revision, or that the Deuterocanonicals were in the KJV from its first publication in 1611 until the late 19th century)

I think the fundamental flaw here in all this is a failure at grasping what the Scriptures are and what the Scriptures are for. The Bible is that collection of writings which, over the course of history, the Christian Church received and recognized as being inspired and important and thus to be read, out loud, within the context of the liturgy (Scripture readings) to benefit and build up the faith of the Faithful who were gathered there.

The very idea of the Canon was what was to be read in church, that is, during worship; that question is a long and complicated one. We can be fairly confident that in the beginning it was more-or-less "the Law and the Prophets", very probably the LXX. Though as Christianity came out of Judaism it also inherited Judaism's Scriptures, but the problem is that Judaism in the first century was neither a monolithic entity and even among the Pharisees there wasn't a rigidly defined Canon of Scripture. At the same time Christians were figuring out their Canon of Scripture Judaism was also figuring it out, and while obviously there was overlap between the two the roads toward Canonization were very different.

What does this mean? It means that while Judaism in the first several centuries of the Common Era concluded that Esther was Scripture, Christianity was not quite so certain on what to do with Esther, and further, there were two versions of Esther, Hebrew Esther and Greek Esther. Christians largely accepted Greek Esther in that it was the form of Esther found in the LXX, whereas Jews only accepted Hebrew Esther. And while I say Christians largely accepted Greek Esther, Esther's canonicity was hardly certain in the Church, for example St. Athanasius regarded Esther as non-canonical.

So the purpose of the Canon--that is, the purpose of the Bible--was to serve first and foremost as a canon of liturgically accepted writing, to be read for the edification of the Church. These Scriptures were holy and divinely inspired because through these the Church received and affirmed that God spoke His Word--Christ--to us. The Scriptures, therefore, are the vehicle through which the living and incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, meets us; and they are therefore God's word.

Because of this the Scriptures, even when translated, copied, etc remain the very word of God for us. Even when or where there are inconsistencies in the texts, even when or where there are historical or minor factual errors, even when or where the text hasn't been copied perfectly, or translated perfectly. The Word of God remains proclaimed to us through the Holy Scriptures because of what the Scriptures are for us: Means through which God delivers Jesus Christ to us as the Church to be build up in our faith and to turn us toward His Son in whom is found our redemption and our salvation, both now and in the age to come.

My problem, as you see, with inerrancy is that it misses the point of the Scriptures. It fails to understand the beauty and importance of the Bible as not merely a static word, but the dynamic, powerful, word of God that cuts through everything else to get to the heart of things: Jesus Christ the Living and Incarnate Word of God and His precious and holy Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

What features of Christianity need to be factual? Would it bother you if we found that the Gospel of Mark was totally fiction and there was nobody named Jesus who was crucified?

I often hear Christians say that we shouldn't take the Bible literally, but where do we draw the line? We might say the Nicene Creed is the minimum, but the Nicene Creed includes the bit about the Virgin Mary. Many Christians will admit that the virgin birth may not be historically accurate.

That's why I think somebody needs to make a table listing what is true, what is myth, what is uncertain. People debate inerrancy and infallibility for the entire Bible, but they should debate item by item. Often people can find common ground when they move beyond generalities to specifics.

 

[Job8]

What do you think about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could punish Egypt with plagues - culminating in the death of every first born human or animal in Egypt? If that story was actual history then God is awful.

That story is actual history, and it does not nullify the veracity of the Torah. It does illustrate the fundamental spiritual principle which is stated throughout Scripture -- THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN ARE DEATH. Egypt had been exposed to the truth about the one true God through the Israelites who lived in Egypt. Nonetheless, Egypt was a grossly idolatrous nation, and we have no idea of all the abominations which were being practised.

There is also another fundamental fact which no human being can escape. GOD IS JUST. While He offers salvation graciously to all, He also promises Divine judgement to those who will not repent and obey the Gospel. Of course, since atheists believe that God does not even exist, this will not concern you greatly.

 

[Job8]

Concerning inerrancy and infallibility, we must begin with inspiration.
INSPIRATION DEMANDS INERRANCY
INERRANCY DEMANDS INFALLIBILITY

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. This is all summed up in 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Job8]

That's why I think somebody needs to make a table listing what is true, what is myth, what is uncertain. People debate inerrancy and infallibility for the entire Bible, but they should debate item by item. Often people can find common ground when they move beyond generalities to specifics.

"All Scripture" means all Scripture. There is no need for this exercise in futility. One can either accept the ENTIRE BIBLE as factual, reliable, certain, and true, or one can reject it altogether. There is no middle ground. In any event, those who do not possess the Holy Spirit will never comprehend Bible truth (which is essentially spiritual).

 

[lesliedellow]

Here is a link on Biblical inerrancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Inerrancy means that everything in the original manuscript must be correct. Infallibility means that everything in the original manuscript is spiritually helpful but it isn't necessarily correct.

Infallibility means that the Bible is correct in all that it says about God, but that it is not necessarily correct when it speaks of things which reflect the culture in which it was written - such as the place of women in society or in demons being the cause of disease.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Infallibility means that Bible is correct in all it teaches about the nature of God and all its moral teachings. Inerrancy means the Bible is correct in everything else it teaches, geography, history, etc., every event described in the Bible happened exactly as it said.

To ask the question another way, on one hand we have people that believe the entire Bible is literally true from cover to cover, on the other hand we have people who say parts aren't literally true but they are good teachings. This gives each believer a lot of latitude. My priest taught us that the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels were myths, allegories, etc. Where do we draw the line?

There won't be a complete consenus among all Christians as to where to draw the line. It's not all gray area though. In some cases the literal truth is essential to the teasching. The case of the Incarnation is the most obvious example. The Apostle's Creed speaks clearly:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.


In the case the incarnation, Christ's virgin birth, sinless life, crucifixion and ressurection, that's not merely a teaching about history, it's also a teaching about the nature of God. Paul plainly says if Christ is not resurrected our faith is in vain. It's a necessary belief for infallibility as well as inerrancy.

Rather than leave it to each believer to decide for himself/herself what is literally true and what isn't, have any of the denominations attempted to create a table showing what parts of the Bible are literally true and what parts aren't?

Well, yes, that's the point of creeds and confessions. Even Anglicanism, which offers the most doctrinal latitude of all the historic Christian denominations, states in the 39 Articles:

II.Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man.

​

THE Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

III.Of the going down of Christ into Hell

​

AS Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He went down into Hell.


IV.Of the Resurrection of Christ.

​

CHRIST did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherefore He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the last day.

 

[aiki]

I am in

Inerrancy means that everything in the original manuscript must be correct. Infallibility means that everything in the original manuscript is spiritually helpful but it isn't necessarily correct.

Instead of classifying the Bible as a unit, I think believers should classify books of the Bible or even sections of those books. For example, many Christians don't believe that the Torah is historically accurate, but those same Christians might believe that the Gospels are historically accurate (roughly).

Is there such a thing as "New Testament inerrancy"?

Psalm 119:160 - "All your words are true. All your laws are right. They last forever."

Yes. And Old Testament inerrancy, too. Inasmuch as all Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim. 3:16) and God is Himself perfect, it stands to reason that His inspired Word is also likewise perfect. I don't think, however, that "inerrant" when referring to Scripture means "correct." The Bible records things that are not morally "correct" or in keeping with the spiritual principles and divine truths of God. There are many of these "incorrect" things found in the Bible. Does this mean the Bible is not inerrant? No. Inerrancy has to do with the Word of God being without error and being truthful. The following article does a good job of giving a brief outline of the doctrine of inerrancy:

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-bible-inerrant-word-god

Selah.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

What do you think about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could punish Egypt with plagues - culminating in the death of every first born human or animal in Egypt? If that story was actual history then God is awful.

Thankfully it is not actual History (in the more modern sense of the word).

Though the books are inspired by God, I do believe God allows the time/context/beliefs of the writers of the bible to influence what is put down.

I think several things need to be taken into account.

1. Lack of Archaeological Evidence (anachronisms, etc) for the exodus (and numbers of people the Bible said participated). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus Not even the modern Israel has found evidence for it.

2. Message of Jesus and viewpoint of God in the NT. I think we get a more accurate view of the nature of God (after all through Jesus we see the Father) in the NT then we do the OT. From what is in the NT, I don't picture Jesus/God as someone who would intentionally murder children to free other people from slavery, nor will he command his followers to slaughter other men, women, and children. Jesus loves humanity, especially children, and his message of loving ones enemies does not compute with a picture of God that has murdered Children. Killing a Child for the faults of the government the child resides in (or the parents sin) goes against Jesus's character. The death of a child would also brings horrible suffering to the parents. I don't believe this is what Jesus would want (and give) to people.

3. Context of the time (and what the people were experiencing) when the Exodus story was written.

a. Back then people were not as focused on historical accuracy, as they are now when discussing the past.

b. Biblical Scholars believe the Exodus story was finalized in its present from post-Exilic period. If that is true, one could see the importance of the story (even if it is not historically accurate). The Jew in that time were in Babylon and surrounded by other beliefs. The exodus story gave them hope (and also for other groups later in time, i.e black slaves) that God is looking out for them, and has a plan for them (this can still be true). That God is more powerful then the other gods of other societies/religion (shown in the exodus story with the 10 plagues). One could also read the story as God saving us from being enslaved by sin, and that he cares about us. This theological truth does not rest on whether or not the exodus is historical.

c. The writers of the exodus story lacked the NT viewpoint of God and our 21st moral standards (their violent world sure didn't help either) . Stories about God wiping out there enemies (or ordering it to be done) would not seem wrong in their eyes (they would see these stories of God's almighty power). They did not have notions of human equality or that they should love their enemies, that there is a Prince of Peace named Jesus. On the topic of Children, they did not have the belief that it was wrong to punish children for the sins of the parents (shown in the exodus story, stories about wiping out the cannanites, etc). In other words we are seeing how they viewed God. Which is why some views of God in the OT do not align with what we see in Jesus.

Im not saying everything about God in the OT should be thrown away, there is truth about his nature in the OT (especially theological truth). However I do think some examples of God's "actions" in the OT should not actually be attributed to his character. It goes to show that though God had a hand in creating the books of the Bible, it is also a human book(s) as well.

 

[oi_antz]

I often hear Christians say that we shouldn't take the Bible literally, .

I am wondering why someone would say this. Do you know?

 

[oi_antz]

I was not arguing that Gospel of Peter, etc. were more credible than the canonical gospels. I was giving examples of untruthful gospels, because @oi_antz seemed to be saying that he could not imagine people writing untruthful gospels.

That's not what I said. I said that the four gospels seem truthful and to have said them dishonestly would be inconsistent, actually impossible, since the dishonesty would be apparent.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thankfully it is not actual History (in the more modern sense of the word).

Though the books are inspired by God, I do believe God allows the time/context/beliefs of the writers of the bible to influence what is put down.

I think several things need to be taken into account.

1. Lack of Archaeological Evidence (anachronisms, etc) for the exodus (and numbers of people the Bible said participated). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus Not even the modern Israel has found evidence for it.

2. Message of Jesus and viewpoint of God in the NT. I think we get a more accurate view of the nature of God (after all through Jesus we see the Father) in the NT then we do the OT. From what is in the NT, I don't picture Jesus/God as someone who would intentionally murder children to free other people from slavery, nor will he command his followers to slaughter other men, women, and children. Jesus loves humanity, especially children, and his message of loving ones enemies does not compute with a picture of God that has murdered Children. Killing a Child for the faults of the government the child resides in (or the parents sin) goes against Jesus's character. The death of a child would also brings horrible suffering to the parents. I don't believe this is what Jesus would want (and give) to people.

3. Context of the time (and what the people were experiencing) when the Exodus story was written.

a. Back then people were not as focused on historical accuracy, as they are now when discussing the past.

b. Biblical Scholars believe the Exodus story was finalized in its present from post-Exilic period. If that is true, one could see the importance of the story (even if it is not historically accurate). The Jew in that time were in Babylon and surrounded by other beliefs. The exodus story gave them hope (and also for other groups later in time, i.e black slaves) that God is looking out for them, and has a plan for them (this can still be true). That God is more powerful then the other gods of other societies/religion (shown in the exodus story with the 10 plagues). One could also read the story as God saving us from being enslaved by sin, and that he cares about us. This theological truth does not rest on whether or not the exodus is historical.

c. The writers of the exodus story lacked the NT viewpoint of God and our 21st moral standards (their violent world sure didn't help either) . Stories about God wiping out there enemies (or ordering it to be done) would not seem wrong in their eyes (they would see these stories of God's almighty power). They did not have notions of human equality or that they should love their enemies, that there is a Prince of Peace named Jesus. On the topic of Children, they did not have the belief that it was wrong to punish children for the sins of the parents (shown in the exodus story, stories about wiping out the cannanites, etc). In other words we are seeing how they viewed God. Which is why some views of God in the OT do not align with what we see in Jesus.

Im not saying everything about God in the OT should be thrown away, there is truth about his nature in the OT (especially theological truth). However I do think some examples of God's "actions" in the OT should not actually be attributed to his character. It goes to show that though God had a hand in creating the books of the Bible, it is also a human book(s) as well.

Thanks, that sounds like honesty and common sense to me.

 

[cloudyday2]

@oi_antz , sometimes I have trouble understanding your posts, so don't be offended if I am not answering the questions you asked. Here goes...

I am wondering why someone would say this. Do you know?

There are things in the Bible that many people can't believe when read literally such as Noah's Ark, the genealogy from Adam to historical times, etc. So they say we should not read the Bible literally.

That's not what I said. I said that the four gospels seem truthful and to have said them dishonestly would be inconsistent, actually impossible, since the dishonesty would be apparent.

I don't get this. Why would the dishonesty be apparent?

 

[oi_antz]

@oi_antz , sometimes I have trouble understanding your posts, so don't be offended if I am not answering the questions you asked. Here goes...

It seems wrong to expect me to not be offended if you ignore a question. If you don't understand a question, it is right to ask for clarity.

Edit: well I have traced the misunderstanding. It's ok, I think I was careful enough with the words I chose here, but it seems like you probably read it a bit quickly and got the wrong idea. It happens a lot, as most people who do this are expecting me to be saying some Christian rhetoric rather than genuine thought.

There are things in the Bible that many people can't believe when read literally such as Noah's Ark, the genealogy from Adam to historical times, etc. So they say we should not read the Bible literally.

To determine whether they are justified to not believe Genesis, I need to know why they can't believe it. Do they believe contradictory information instead, or do they rather believe it is impossible?

Furthrmore, you seem to suggest these people use disbelief of Genesis as the basis for disbelieving Matthew. Do you also think this is a valid reason to disbelieve Matthew? If so, please explain why.

I don't get this. Why would the dishonesty be apparent?

Just as Jesus says in John 8:18 and Matthew 16:17, God Himself testifies to the truth. Just as Jesus says in John 18:37 "everyone who loves the truth recognizes that what I say is true", and St John observed in 1 John 1:6 that if we lie, we do not live out the truth. St Paul describes the fruits of someone living in such ways in Galatians 5:15. Do you have an example for analysis?