Board index ‹ Bible

[Wasabio]

I'm sorry if I'm taking up your time asking questions like these, but I was just wondering about your opinion on the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. I know you're very well-versed in the Bible and Christianity and I want to know what you have to say on the topic. Some of my questions:

1. What do you define as Biblical Inerrancy, and do you believe in it?
2. What do you make of the small, non-essential contradictions/discrepancies in the Bible, if you believe there are any?

You don't need to respond if you don't want to. Thank you!

[jimwalton]

Glad to respond and to dialogue.

> Biblical inerrancy

This term has its problems and is inadequate to describe what we're after as we talk about honoring the authority of Scripture. We know for a fact that there are manuscript discrepancies in biblical transmission, so it is often said that original manuscripts (the "autographs") are what we consider to be "perfect," or inerrant. But if we have none of the autographs, the claim is somewhat of an illusion. Secondly, we know that the ancients had a different scientific understanding than we do, and that they were writing accurately to their own culture. So is the text inerrant, or isn't it? "Inerrancy" just isn't the right term. In the same sense, the ancients' entire approach to historiography (the writing of history) is different from ours, and when we allow for those differences, "inerrancy" is just not a helpful term.

As was written in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): "We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage and purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. These hermeneutical principles are designed to prevent us from demanding mathematical precision from the New Testament but rather historical and theological reliability in terms of the ordinary communication of daily life. This approach leaves some room for discretion while at the same time not calling into question the conviction that the New Testament is true in all that it affirms."

Theologically speaking, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use a single term that provides an adequate box for us to put Scripture in. All of the words are too limited, and Scripture is too exalted. We use words like infallible, inerrant, and literal to try to declare our deep respect and honor for the authority and divine nature of the Scriptures, but these are man-made words used to refute accusations against the Bible. While we admire the reasons they were coined, further investigation shows us that they don't rise to the necessary height to capture the worthiness of God’s Word.

Our wisest course is to use words that the Bible itself uses to describe itself, and we can find safety and assurance in the adequacy of those terms. Even those words need to be interpreted, however. The first term comes from 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Paul's points are several, not the least of which is that Scripture has God's authority because God is its source. And because God is its source, we can treat it as having the same attributes that God himself has: objective truth, authoritative information, and reliable guidance. It is to be believed and obeyed.

Being God-breathed, the Scripture carries the very presence of God and life of God himself. These words have authority and truth, power and presence. "God-breathed" emphasizes a divine source rather than human truth. Is there a difference between human truth and God's truth? Not in a normal sense, since truth is truth, but yes in the sense that our truth is a derived truth, and God's truth is the original and the source of truth. Think of a pool table with billiard balls on it. When you hit the cue ball into another ball, the other ball is not moving on its own power. It's moving because something made it move. The energy it has is real energy, but it's different from the energy of the first ball. And it can't be as much as the original energy; at least some energy was lost on impact. We as humans deal in derived truth (the second ball), but God's Word is Source Truth, objective truth, absolute truth. God is not only the source of truth, He is truth, and the Scriptures are an authoritative revelation of himself. The truth I tell, by contrast, is derived truth. Something else made it true; I'm just passing it on.

Scripture being God-breathed puts it on a different level than anything I have to say, no matter how true it is. His truth, the Bible, carries more weight, more authority, and more authenticity.
In addition, 2 Peter 1.21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Here we see again that God is the sole source, but the authority of the text is vested in the human communicator, which is our only access to God's communication, which is our true source of authority. While the pen was in the hand of a human, the words had both divine source, initiative, authority and reliability.

John Walton and D. Brent Sandy, in their book "The Lost World of Scripture," counsel: (1) We should be competent readers of the text itself (the words, grammar, syntax, context, genre, etc.); (2) We should be ethical readers as we seek to follow what is written, following the path of the intended meaning of the text; and (3) We should be virtuous readers. The Bible is offering an encounter with God, and it expects the reader to be transformed as a result.

> What do you make of the small, non-essential contradictions/discrepancies in the Bible, if you believe there are any?

We have to distinguish between different expressions of opinion (are they animal crackers or animal cookies?), different perspectives (reporting on a car accident from the front or the back; what is the #1 song of the year [it depends what your criteria are]), and meaningless discrepancies (copyist errors). Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary recognizes varying levels and standards of contradiction, which can be from the assertion of a variant opinion to the denial of truth of an expressed proposition, and also even the proposal of logical incongruities. I would define as a valid contradiction if you sat the two authors down at a table, and no matter how much discussion they had, they would never agree with each other or never realize they were saying the same thing.

I make a distinction between discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Discrepancies are unintentional differences, either copying errors, misspellings or misunderstandings. Contradictions are intentional conflicts of position and information. In other words, a true contradiction is when two people oppose each other in the accurate representation of a truth, with each claiming opposing and mutually exclusive truths.

The Bible has many discrepancies in it, and a few instances of different perspectives, but these are easily resolved, and they actually account for about 98% of what is labeled "contradiction" by skeptics and critics of the Bible. They are not contradictions at all, but simple and resolvable discrepancies.

The other 2% of "contradictions" are varying perspectives. We are being told the same story from different viewpoints that sound like they contradict, but a small amount of detective work is able to coalesce the standpoints into a sensible and unified whole.

As such I am claiming that the Bible has no contradictions in it—not a single one. There is not a single occasion where the authors are writing accounts that are at odds with each other, where, given the chance, the authors would argue with each other because they disagree, and both would be convinced of their opinion. This situation does not exist in the Bible. There are no contradictions. If we could sit the authors across from each other and let them talk about what happened, I have full confidence they would be in agreement. They may still choose to tell the story from their side of it, and according to the theme of their writing, but they would agree about what happened and what the truth is.

[Wasabio]

The reason I posed that question and then followed up with a reference to Bart Ehrman was to demonstrate how someone with a seemingly similar viewpoint to yours responded to such a "contradiction", and to inquire whether you would follow suit, if you found such a "contradiction".

I haven't read much of the OT, and so I can't really come up with any factual differences (if there are any) off the top of my head. I've been watching WLC's lectures on the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy and he was talking about how someone defected from the faith because it (supposedly) could be demonstrated that the number of Solomon's horses in a Biblical account was inaccurate. I'm not sure what to think of this man who defected because of a possible miscount in the Bible. This question is very closely related to the question mentioned above: Was this man acting correctly when he departed from the faith because he found a "flaw" in the Word of God?

Could we talk about the different accounts? I did get about one intelligent response, but his view is not the same as your view. I'm trying to get different perspectives on this so I can make a valid judgement of what I think is the most Biblical and thus rational and true... It seems to be like harmonization is necessary to account for the discrepancy (I previously called it a contradiction but after reading your thoughts it may be more accurately called a discrepancy).

Is it fair to say contradictions deal more with the "substance" of Biblical text while discrepancies deal more with the literal text?
I brought up that example to demonstrate how not every sentence is not literally true (context matters!!!). But you know that. Sorry, was lost in a train of thought.

[jimwalton]

> Was this man acting correctly when he departed from the faith because he found a "flaw" in the Word of God?

I don't think a possible miscount is a legitimate reason to discount the resurrection and everything else in the Bible. I think that person had a wrong view of Scripture. "Oh, no, they spelled a word wrong. I guess I can't believe the Bible!"

> Could we talk about the different accounts?

Sure. Which one do you want to start with?

> Is it fair to say contradictions deal more with the "substance" of Biblical text while discrepancies deal more with the literal text?

Yeah, that's how I would frame it. But let's talk about some. That will be helpful for me, too—to think deeply about those texts in specific.

[Wasabio]

I've been reading on Peter's denial of Christ and it makes sense to me now. I don't know why it was so hard to reconcile previously but now I have found the answer.

It seems to me to be safe to assume that the Bible has no contradictions if we read with the right perspective (context matters!). That being said, if there is one, it shouldn't destroy belief in Christ because his reality is not contingent upon whether or not the Bible has contradictions or discrepancies.

I'll definitely let you know if I encounter any potent contradictions or discrepancies.