Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

I was scanning through the multitude of posts in the last two days and the following three snippets set-up my general feelings on the subject. They may not entirely square with any of the people I quoted. But here goes:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't find the question of inerrancy very interesting because the Bible doesn't make such a claim for itself.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is simple, proving that the Bible is inerrant is probably not something that can be done with one observation, or two, or even a thousand.

However, a single observation of an error made by the Bible would disprove the theory.

Originally Posted by awareness

Inerrantism is just one way to use the Bible. And it can be misused and dangerous.

I started with Igzy because he has put it where it belongs — outside the discussion of the self-proclaimed attributes of scripture. The most that it says is that it is the breath of God, and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And what is righteousness if there is no unrighteousness against which to compare and contrast.

ZNP is right. Proving the status as inerrant is a classic case of negative research. In legal research, you think you have something so you start looking for anything that would contradict so you can either adjust your thinking or argue a difference in facts. But when you are finding nothing, there is always the nagging thought that you just haven't looked quited long enough.

And one on-point case that stands in contradiction is all it will take to tear down your position.

But the real key is who is trumpeting the case of inerrancy? Mostly those who want to push a particular position. For example, young earth adherents use it to insist that the account in Genesis 1 must be a literal 6 days (plus rest). (I have no strong opinion on that particular subject, so don't ask.)

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it did not outlaw slavery. It just told slave owners and their slaves how to act toward one another.

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it clearly makes the slave owner and the slave of equal status, therefore it must stand in opposition to slavery.


It seems that people who are busy searching the scriptures for instructions for their own lives do not have the consideration of "inerrant." They accept that God has spoken and seek to find his speaking in the words written.

On the other side, people who are busy searching the scriptures for evidence on why they are right and others are wrong are quick to throw out declarations like "inerrant" and "biblical" as cloaks under which to hide their own errors from the prying eyes of those who might otherwise question them. They use the terms to force a particular understanding without any true consideration for the speaking of God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems that people who are busy searching the scriptures for instructions for their own lives do not have the consideration of "inerrant." They accept that God has spoken and seek to find his speaking in the words written.

On the other side, people who are busy searching the scriptures for evidence on why they are right and others are wrong are quick to throw out declarations like "inerrant" and "biblical" as cloaks under which to hide their own errors from the prying eyes of those who might otherwise question them. They use the terms to force a particular understanding without any true consideration for the speaking of God.

Well said. I appreciate more now what you were trying to tell me months ago about "biblical."

Certainly the Bible should be vetted for errors. Anyone investigating the claims of Christianity should do his or her homework. I have no quibble with that.

But be that as it may, it also should be clear to anyone that the Bible is a very special book, most likely worthy of the label "Word of God." The legwork has already been done. If the Bible had any errors worth worrying about we'd know about them already. The best people can come up with is stuff like discrepancies of numbering, and different versions of quotations, and "how could a loving God blah, blah," and that people have committed atrocities and said they were following the Bible. That's pretty thin gruel for 2000 years of research.

Inerrancy is a legitimate question but not the most important question. That question really is: Does the Bible convey God's truth better than anything else we have? The answer to that is a resounding Yes!

[Cal]

Witness Lee was an example of someone who took inerrancy too far. He created doctrines from phrasing discrepancies.

A good example is his doctrine of the difference between "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew uses the term "kingdom of the heavens." The other gospels use "kingdom of God." From that Witness Lee created this elaborate doctrine about the difference between the two and what that all meant.

But it's pretty clear to me that many passages where Jesus said "kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew and "kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke are recounting the same incident but using different words (eg. cf. Matthew 13:31-33, Luke 13:18-21). Is this error? No, not one God cares about, anyway.

Certainly God is sovereign, but to think he is sending a message about two versions of the kingdom by recounting the same speaking with different words is, to me, too much of a stretch to take seriously.

You can stare at the Bible too hard to find errors, and you can stare at it too hard to find truths.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Witness Lee was an example of someone who took inerrancy too far. He created doctrines from phrasing discrepancies.

A good example is his doctrine of the difference between "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew uses the term "kingdom of the heavens." The other gospels use "kingdom of God." From that Witness Lee created this elaborate doctrine about the difference between the two and what that all meant.

But it's pretty clear to me that many passages where Jesus said "kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew and "kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke are recounting the same incident but using different words (eg. cf. Matthew 13:31-33, Luke 13:18-21). Is this error? No, not one God cares about, anyway.

Certainly God is sovereign, but to think he is sending a message about two versions of the kingdom by recounting the same speaking with different words is, to me, too much of a stretch to take seriously.

You can stare at the Bible too hard to find errors, and you can stare at it too hard to find truths.

Matthew was probably an observant Jew who avoided writing the name of G-d whenever possible.