I have decided to write a series on about Biblical Inerrancy. There are three things I want to discuss in this series; first, the Doctrine of Inerrancy; second, the word Scripture; and third, how our Bible fits into the picture and I will conclude with how we should respond to these three things.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy is simple, wikipedia puts it:
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; “referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts.”
That is the basic definition that you will hear in the seminary classroom. But usually it is watered down a little bit for the “people in the pews.” When it is watered down it is often taught that the Bible we carry around with us is “totally without error, and free from all contradiction.” Sometimes someone will sneak in and discuss manuscript evidence. When they do, they will talk about the evidence that shows us that the Bibles we carry around are not 100% accurate, but are close enough to call accurate (something like 95% in the O.T. and 99% in the N.T.). Most of the variations of course are misspellings, word-order changes, etc. Nothing that would drastically change what we believe.
I have heard it stated a number of times that if there is one error in the Bible then the whole of the Bible is up for speculation… or basically untrustworthy. The problem is, by the numbers, the O.T. is about 5% untrustworthy and the N.T. is about 1% untrustworthy. Further, the Bible that we use everyday is a translation from these manuscripts. With any translation comes interpretation and misinterpretation. So the Bibles we carry around day by day cannot meet the “without error” requirement of this doctrine.
Now I know the doctrine states that the “original” form is without error, etc. That is fine, but it does not do us any good because we do not have the “original” form, we only have copies of copies of copies. Now do not go throwing away your Bibles and rejecting your faith. There is more to this. There is one, slightly ambiguous statement that can help us through this.
As far as our Bible reflects the original author’s (i.e. God) form and intent it is reliable and trustworthy.
So how do we know which parts are reliable? What do we do with those parts that we are unsure of?
I will answer these questions in the third post of this series. Tomorrow we will discuss the word Scripture, how it is used in the Bible, and how it applies to this conversation. Until then, put down your stones, I am probably not as heretical as I sound right now.
Sounds like this is going to be good … looking forward to your next posts …
:)
~Heather
Wonderful topic, Lew.
I’ve been wondering about this for a while now, but “too scared to bounce my thoughts about this” against fellow-believers for fear of being frowned upon as heretical. Fortunately, you guys are far away and can do me no harm :-)))
We are all familiar with 2 Tim 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed…” and Rev 22:18 that says “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book”… and I am sure you are going to be referring to that soon, Lew.
Issues here:
* “Scripture” here refers to the OT as we know it (if I understand things correctly).
* I am sure you guys are a lot better educated than I am as to the meaning of God-breathed, but I understand it that God “laid it on people’s hearts” to write these things. I do not know the exact method: it could be that a lot of it was by word of mouth and God convicted somebody to write it down – or whatever – but I am don’t necessarily read in that that “God dictated to every person in the OT word-for-word exactly what to write”. I think there were still fallible people in the process – doing their utmost best – but still fallible.
* In my mind, the verse in Revelations refers to the book of Revelations – and not the Bible as we know it. John was talking about the book that he was about to complete writing. The “Bible” did not even exist then. I do not think that gives us any liberty to change the other books either!
* We all know there ARE errors and contradictions in the Bible: in the WORDS that were recorded as people spoke, WHAT happended at certain events, WHEN they occurred, etc.
In my mind it is therefore erroneous to say the Bible is “totally without error, and free from all contradiction”.
I do believe that the authors tried to document what they heard and saw as close the truth as possible, but the information is still subjective (i.e. as seen by a particular individual). I think that in some cases, like I and II Chronicles, the facts were even a bit tainted or biased, because they do not always agree with facts in the other OT books.
All the above do not make the Bible unreliable for me: it just confirms for me that one should rather be interpreting the Bible by looking for the golden threads weaving through the it, e.g. God’s character, Jesus, the work of the HS, God’s Kingdom and our role in it, etc.
We should not trip over the inconsistencies, much less use them to build any doctrine on!
All in all, looking at the golden threads, the Bible is AMAZINGLY coherent for the centuries over which it was written and the amount of human authors who worked on it!
—–
OOPS: I hope I am not stealing any thunder here! Please tell me if I am saying too much on another’s blog!
Heather
Thanks, hopefully it doesn’t disappoint!
Allan
I definitely understand being too scared to bounce your thoughts around. I have been very cautious to bounce some of my ideas around, especially in particular groups.
Regarding your list:
1. Yes, it “Scripture” in the N.T. refers to the O.T.
2. Most people believe that the writings were infallible because of how they were inspired. Although this position is really not necessary, given the current condition of our Bibles (more on that in my last post).
3. You are absolutely right, that verse is often used and misused. The Angel told John to write that specifically about that letter and only that letter. It’s funny, those who use that verse to teach that you should not add/subtract from scripture are doing just that by misusing that verse.
I will not touch on your other statements because I think I will be dealing with them in my third/last post.
An do not worry, you’re not stealing my thunder… I don’t even have any thunder to steal :).
Thank you both for commenting.
God’s Glory,
Lew