Inerrancy and Inspiration of Scripture

[Percivale]

I believe in inspiration but no longer believe in inerrancy, but I think maybe I should study the topic in more detail. It's not so much objections to the Bible's accuracy that made me doubt inerrancy as the lack of a strong positive case for it, and the way Jesus disagreed with parts of the Old Testament. Also there is no inspired list of what books belong in the Bible, most books of the Bible don't claim to be the word of God, God could easily have given a more systematic and proven revelation (Jesus could have written some scripture for instance), and insisting on inerrancy seems to cause the church to spend more time fighting over controversial details and less time on the most important teachings of Jesus.
I'd appreciate some quality book and article recommendations from both sides of the issue.

 

[Tolworth John]

Start following answersingenesis, as they depend on an accurate and authoritative Bible to support there view of creation they also defend the Bible.
Search | Answers in Genesis
A link to some of there articles.

A question for you.

If the Bible is not accurate, just what is the teaching of Jesus?
Are the messianic prophecies reliable? Do they real show Jesus as the one who was foretold would come?
Who's account of the crucifixion is true,the Christian, the Jewish or the Islamic?

You have opened a large can of worms for yourself and those worms have teeth.


It is great you are asking questions, but finding answers means serious reading, may I suggest talking to your minister to see if he can lend you books on the Bible etc.

 

[Percivale]

The four gospels were written quite close to the events and there is good evidence they are as accurate as any history book from that time. Not being inerrant doesn't mean unreliable.

 

[pescador]

The four gospels were written quite close to the events and there is good evidence they are as accurate as any history book from that time. Not being inerrant doesn't mean unreliable.

The gospel was originally spoken, not written. There was no mass media to report the news; information about Jesus was spread orally by the apostles and others. There were several versions of the story of His time on earth and all of them are believable. They are not "accurate" in terms of modern journalism, but they present the full story of Jesus life more completely than would have happened if there was modern "factual" reporting.

 

[food4thought]

I am personally thinking more deeply on this issue at the present (thanks for starting the thread, Percivale!). As Tolworth John pointed out, introducing the concept that the Scriptures are not inerrant does pose some problems for establishing a foundation for believing in the gospel. I came across the Chicago Statement on inerrancy in my search, and I am considering it for now. Much of it I can readily agree with and affirm, but there are some areas I am not so sure about. Here is a link to their statements on infallibility and hermeneutics:

The CHICAGO STATEMENTS on INERRANCY and HERMENEUTICS

Although I am not at this time able to endorse the totality of either statement, I do agree in principal with the idea that a good, loving, true, omnipotent, and omniscient God would certainly be ABLE to send us an inerrant message, and that His character would seem to me to DEMAND that any authentic communication with us would be so. Of course, the main case for Biblical inerrancy comes from the Bible itself, not philosophy... here are just a few references to what the Bible says about God and itself:

Many statements in Psalms 119; and Psalms 138:2

Jesus' own words... John 17:17; Matthew 5:17-19; John 3:33; John 10:35

Paul's teachings... Romans 2:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Other Apostles: 1 John 5:6; 1 Peter 1:20-21; Hebrews 6:18

The best definition of truth (really the only one even close to being adequate): that which corresponds to reality as it exists (note: John 14:6... as the Person who is the truth, Jesus corresponds to "Ultimate Reality", the Father, as He exists. see Colossians 2:9)

If Scripture is to be spoken of as true, it must correspond to reality as it exists.
The Scriptures claim to be true.
Therefore, the Scriptures must be accurate to reality as it exists whenever it speaks on any subject.

That is the essence of inerrancy, and I cannot see a way around the matter. I welcome everyone's feedback!

God bless you;
Michael

 

[food4thought]

... and the way Jesus disagreed with parts of the Old Testament.

Example, please?

 

[hedrick]

The OP asked for books. I recommend Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So. It looks at how the Bible really works. Inerrancy fails to understand what is actually giving on.

 

[Percivale]

Luke 16:17-18 is perplexing; Jesus says none of the law will become void, then immediately gives a teaching on divorce that disagrees with Deuteronomy. Either vs. 17 is sarcasm or Jesus means God's will rather than the Bible when he says 'law.'
In Mark 7:19 Jesus declares all foods clean; how can you harmonize that with Matthew 5:17-19?

 

[hedrick]

Luke 16:17-18 is perplexing; Jesus says none of the law will become void, then immediately gives a teaching on divorce that disagrees with Deuteronomy. Either vs. 17 is sarcasm or Jesus means God's will rather than the Bible when he says 'law.'
In Mark 7:19 Jesus declares all foods clean; how can you harmonize that with Matthew 5:17-19?

I agree. However Jews have always interpreted the law creatively, and did in the 1st Century. The fact that the Torah was God's eternal gift to his people didn't stop people from adjusting the laws to fit their circumstances.

I also point out that Mark 7:19 includes both Jesus' words and Mark's interpretation of them. It's not necessarily true that Jesus' statement rejected all food laws. Jesus had a tendency to use hyperbole. While the most serious uncleanness doesn't reside in food, he might well still have honored the tradition by obeying them. However in the later Gentile context, where those laws were not considered applicable even by many Jews, Jesus' words came to take on new meaning. Early Christians were not immune from reinterpretation either.

Like it or not, Jesus and other 1st Cent Jews did not interpret the Bible the way modern fundamentalists do. He also did not interpret it the way modern liberals do. At least not completely. We focus on understanding what the text meant in its original context, even if that meaning makes no sense or is repugnant. However, we are then willing to say that in our circumstances we honor the intent of the Biblical authors better by not obeying their letter. Jesus and other Jews at the time would do the same thing we do, but commonly did it by playing word games with the text. Although in Mat 5, Jesus was perfectly willing to say "Moses said .. but I say". Even while saying that the Torah will never pass away.

 

[hedrick]

Why don't mainline Protestants take the same approach to texts as Jews (including Jesus)? Because we've seen too many examples of unjustified creative interpretations. We think it's safer to be clear about what we're doing, so we can require justification for it.

 

[pescador]

I was born in 1943 in New York. I am 77 years old and was born in New York City. I am in my late seventies and was born in the Northeast United States.

Which of these statements is untrue? After all, none of them say exactly the same thing.

 

[food4thought]

Luke 16:17-18 is perplexing; Jesus says none of the law will become void, then immediately gives a teaching on divorce that disagrees with Deuteronomy. Either vs. 17 is sarcasm or Jesus means God's will rather than the Bible when he says 'law.'

My starting point is 2 Timothy 3:16. The ultimate Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. He knew all that He would inspire from the beginning, so we need to look at it as a cohesive whole. This is particularly evident in the Gospels, as each of the Gospels was written with different goals and different audiences in mind, and each writer used their own eye witnesses of the events described (either their own or someone else's recollections). We also must take into account the accepted practice of the time in regards to using "free citations", which allowed more leeway in quoting people than is allowed today.

That said, Luke's account is not the complete picture, but an essential part of a cohesive whole. Comparing his account with Matthew's, we see that Jesus includes an important qualification to His statement: divorce is allowed when the spouse is sexually unfaithful. In this case it would be allowed for a person to remarry. This agrees perfectly with Deuteronomy. Luke was writing to a Greek audience, and taking into account Acts 15, the finer points of the Law of Moses as it pertains to divorce would be irrelevant to them. Matthew, on the other hand, was writing to a Jewish audience, and therefore he takes greater care to be more detailed in this instance. One account supplements the other.

In Mark 7:19 Jesus declares all foods clean; how can you harmonize that with Matthew 5:17-19?

The end of Matthew 7:19 is mistranslated. The relevant text literally reads "cleansing all foods cleansed". It is unclear whether it is Jesus's words or an interpretation by the writer of what Jesus meant. It is also difficult to determine exactly what is meant by the phrase, but it doesn't say He "declared" anything. I am not fluent in Greek, so I won't presume to say what it does mean, but it isn't out of the question that in this case the KJV has it right.

God bless you as you seek Him!
Michael

 

[hedrick]

The end of Matthew 7:19 is mistranslated. The relevant text literally reads "cleansing all foods cleansed". It is unclear whether it is Jesus's words or an interpretation by the writer of what Jesus meant. It is also difficult to determine exactly what is meant by the phrase, but it doesn't say He "declared" anything. I am not fluent in Greek, so I won't presume to say what it does mean, but it isn't out of the question that in this case the KJV has it right.

God bless you as you seek Him!
Michael

Since Mat 7:19 doesn't match, I assume you're speaking of Mark 7:19. The problem is that it doesn't match either. The phrase has 3 words: cleansing all foods. Here's the Anchor Bible's commentary on cleansing:

"Katharizein literally means “to purify or cleanse.” In the LXX it can be used in cultic contexts either for an act of making something pure (e.g. Exod 29:36–37) or for the declaration that something has already been made pure (e.g. Lev 13:6, 23)."

In this context they suggest the second meaning, though some translations seem to go with the first. I don't think it affects the meaning.

 

[Percivale]

Whether the end of Mark 7:19 is Jesus' words or commentary, or just how you translate it does not affect the fact that Jesus was disagreeing with the food laws of the OT. Maybe he would say of them and many other OT laws what he said of the permission of divorce in Deuteronomy 24, that it was given because of the hardness of their hearts; it was a temporary accommodation of where the israelites were morally at the time. But is that consistent with saying not one jot will fall, and people should not disobey the least of the OT commands?

 

[food4thought]

Since Mat 7:19 doesn't match, I assume you're speaking of Mark 7:19. The problem is that it doesn't match either. The phrase has 3 words: cleansing all foods.

Thank you for the correction on both points... I was on my phone using the Blue Letter Bible, and it's interlinear showed katherizo at the beginning and end of the phrase. I'll check it out on the e-sword when I get home.

Here's the Anchor Bible's commentary on cleansing:

"Katharizein literally means “to purify or cleanse.” In the LXX it can be used in cultic contexts either for an act of making something pure (e.g. Exod 29:36–37) or for the declaration that something has already been made pure (e.g. Lev 13:6, 23)."

In this context they suggest the second meaning, though some translations seem to go with the first. I don't think it affects the meaning.

Interesting... do you know of a resource that has an English translation of the Septuagint with Strong's numbers interspersed in the text? I am curious as to what Greek word was used to translate the "unclean" statements in Leviticus 11... is it the same as Jesus used in Mark 7:18? Might be significant considering how often the NT writers used it.

God bless you;
Michael

 

[food4thought]

@hedrick
Never mind on the English Septuagint with strong's numbers... I think the e-sword offers an interlinear.

 

[Joyous Song]

Percivale stated: I believe in inspiration but no longer believe in inerrancy, but I think maybe I should study the topic in more detail. It's not so much objections to the Bible's accuracy that made me doubt inerrancy as the lack of a strong positive case for it, and the way Jesus disagreed with parts of the Old Testament. Also there is no inspired list of what books belong in the Bible, most books of the Bible don't claim to be the word of God, God could easily have given a more systematic and proven revelation (Jesus could have written some scripture for instance), and insisting on inerrancy seems to cause the church to spend more time fighting over controversial details and less time on the most important teachings of Jesus.
I'd appreciate some quality book and article recommendations from both sides of the issue.

We found fewer problems in the Christian text when we go back to the Greek. Also to understand why Jesus challenged the Pharisees understanding of and why the Renew Testament often seems to talk against Torah, is a complex answer. Read our write-up on Is.28. We just posted a summery you can use to check back on that book in the Bible, we include the verses we are interpenetrating.

In fact most "mistakes" and "misunderstandings" come from partial or incomplete understandings. Being so far from that time, this was likely to happen. So connecting yourself to a leader who can answer each question you have to your satisfaction, or learning to study these texts as we do might help you recover your faith in the written Word.

 

[Saint Steven]

Luke 16:17-18 is perplexing; Jesus says none of the law will become void, then immediately gives a teaching on divorce that disagrees with Deuteronomy. Either vs. 17 is sarcasm or Jesus means God's will rather than the Bible when he says 'law.'
In Mark 7:19 Jesus declares all foods clean; how can you harmonize that with Matthew 5:17-19?

There are different meanings of the term "the law". (the Law - capital L) The NIV is helpful in this regard in many passages. See below. And compare to the scripture below that. When "Law" is capitalized, it means the BOOKS of the Law, not the laws themselves. Note: the verse in Romans uses both forms. (the law, the Law) Very interesting. IMHO

Luke 16:17-18 NIV
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Romans 3:21 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

 

[Saint Steven]

Although I am not at this time able to endorse the totality of either statement, I do agree in principal with the idea that a good, loving, true, omnipotent, and omniscient God would certainly be ABLE to send us an inerrant message, and that His character would seem to me to DEMAND that any authentic communication with us would be so. Of course, the main case for Biblical inerrancy comes from the Bible itself, not philosophy... here are just a few references to what the Bible says about God and itself:

Many statements in Psalms 119; and Psalms 138:2

Jesus' own words... John 17:17; Matthew 5:17-19; John 3:33; John 10:35

Paul's teachings... Romans 2:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Other Apostles: 1 John 5:6; 1 Peter 1:20-21; Hebrews 6:18

The real problem here is considering what the authors meant at the time this was written. The New Testament canon had not been assembled and approved yet. (Not until the fourth century?) So, what are the authors referring to?

The champions of inerrancy will likely claim that the Holy Spirit saw ahead to know what it should mean to us today, but "What did it mean at the time?", is STILL a valid question.

 

[TheDisaffected]

I second the suggestion for Peter Enns book. I found his approach frustrating in some places and wish “The Bible Tells Me So” had better notes and references, but I don’t think there’s a better book that puts forward the position that the Bible IS authoritative Scripture but NOT (and not meant to be) perfectly inerrant and consistent.

Personally, I find that the issue of inerrancy doesn’t matter nearly as much as it seems. After all, we don’t demand inerrant, flawless sources in order to learn about and act on anything else in our lives. A source can be reliable and authoritative without having to be inerrant.