Implications of Inerrancy
In anticipation of the 2011 conference, The Bible Tells Me So, I recently blogged about errors and inconsistencies I’ve discovered in the Bible. My main point was that the Bible doesn’t have to be in all ways inerrant for God to use it when offering us salvation.
I appreciate the responses I’ve received to my earlier blog on biblical inerrancy. They have pushed me to think in new ways.
There is another reason Christian scholars are uncomfortable using the word “inerrant” regarding the Bible. The Bibles we read today did not come directly from original manuscripts or autographs.
As far as we know, those original copies no longer exist. The Bibles we today read have been translated from various bits and pieces of scripture. The oldest manuscripts available were printed centuries after the books were originally written.
The issue of original biblical manuscripts gets a twist when we consider the books Christians generally call the “Old Testament.” These books were written in Hebrew. By the time of Jesus, however, Jews were no longer speaking Hebrew. Instead, Jesus and others spoke Aramaic and Greek.
Hebrew words of the original Old Testament writings did not have vowels. It was not until centuries after Jesus was resurrected that a group of individuals called the Maserites invented and inserted a system of vowels in the Hebrew text. The biblical Hebrew we have today is partly the result of their work.
This means that the texts used to translate the books of the Old Testament were altered long ago. And even if the “autographs” were miraculously found in some cave, knowing exactly how each word should be translated would be impossible.
So… how have Christians dealt with these issues over the centuries?
I find it helpful to remember that contemporary Christians are not the first to acknowledge that the Bible has inconsistencies and errors. Many important Christian leaders in history acknowledged that the Bible is not inerrant.
Take the great 16th century reformer Martin Luther, for instance. Most would argue that Luther — who argued for “scripture alone” — had a high regard for the Bible. Yet, he was quite critical of some of it.
For instance, Luther argued …
(1) God’s prophets in the Old Testament were sometimes in error,
(2) the book of Kings is more reliable than the book of Chronicles,
(3) the book of Esther should have probably been left out of the Bible,
(4) not all the Gospels are of equal value,
(5) the writer of Hebrews erred when he said that there is no possibility of a second repentance,
(6) the author of James “mangles scripture” and the whole book should be burned like worthless straw,
(7) the book of Revelation reveals nothing.
Luther does not stand alone in these criticisms. Most well known Christian theologians from the past join him in at least some.
When confronted with this information and the information I presented in an earlier blog, some of my fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters argue that the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error. They admit that the Bibles we use today have errors. But they cling to the claim that the originals were inerrant.
This, of course, is a claim that is impossible to verify. As far as we know, the originals do not exist.
Perhaps more importantly, it is ultimately a worthless claim. The Bibles we use today were not directly derived from the original manuscripts.
In other words, “inerrancy,” in this sense, does not describe our Bibles — or, for that matter, the Bibles used by 99.9% or more Christians who have ever lived. Don’t we ultimately want to know how to best talk about and use the Bibles we have today?
Because some Christians point to original autographs we don’t have, they fail to assert convincingly the authority of the biblical text we do have. We end up asking basic questions, “What authority does this Bible have?” “Are our Bibles inspired by God?” “What can we really mean by ‘inerrant’?” These are precisely the kind of questions we’ll be considering at The Bible Tells Me So conference.
In addition, if God thought having an absolutely inerrant Bible was so important, why didn’t God take care to preserve the text from error? Surely, the God who has the power to deliver a manuscript without the slightest error also has the power to ensure that no errors are inserted or the text changed! 
In my view, the word “inerrancy” directs our attention to the small difficulties in the Bible rather than to the salvation truths of its proclamation.
God has been using Bibles with errors or inconsistencies to offer people throughout history the possibility of abundant life in Christ. God uses the Bible – flaws and all – to inspire believers to attain a deeper relationship with their Creator.
I think it’s important to consider the errors and inconsistencies and study biblical details. Biblical scholarship of this sort is very important. But I think it’s most important to discover the message of salvation God inspired the authors to write and the Church to proclaim.
The message of salvation isn’t based upon and doesn’t require an inerrant book.
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
Tom, excellent piece. You are quite right, the inerrancy doctrine keeps us focused on things that ultimately don’t matter because we don’t have any autographs to check against, and even then what would it prove.
The fact that an evangelical writer took the time to write a massive book trying to explain away and harmonize all the bible difficulties should go a long way to remind us that it’s a doctrine that doesn’t go anywhere.
This is a great article.
I particularly like the line, “Because some Christians point to original autographs we don’t have, they fail to assert convincingly the authority of the biblical text we do have.”
This very issue of biblical inerrancy was unfortunately used as a political club to control the SBC and had tragic consequences, some smaller splinter groups and the SBC calcified into a rigid fundamentalism on many issues.
Every church needs to teach and study the very specifics about the Bible that they have in their hands: age of extant manuscripts, comparison of manuscripts, issues of scribes copying the scriptures, the number and types of outstanding manuscripts, decisions of textual criticism, translation issues, interpretation issues.
When exposed to actual historical facts, most people today will be able to draw reasonable conclusions about the nature of the Bible. When we start with theology, many times we end up with unreasonable assertions based upon legitimate faith. When the unreasonable assertions are challenged, some believers will feel that their faith is threatened. Once they too threatened, often no fact will change their mind.
Dr. Oord,
I am challenged by your musings and I find that I agree with the majority of what you say, and in this case I wholeheartedly believe the brunt of this post; that the bible does not have to be inerrant in order to say something theologically and soteriologically practical for our lives. However, in the midst of the ministry I have been participating this summer, I have had many conversations with fundamentalists, and briefly playing the devil’s advocate, I want to posit some questions that I have had trouble answering.
First of all, if there is fault in scripture then how can we truly differentiate between truth and error? Do we rely on our own discernment for all of scripture? Are we to discount all miraculous accounts that do not survive our reasonable discernment? What role does the Holy Spirit play in our exploration of scripture?
If we are to profess that scripture is inspired, then why did God only inspire/preserve some of the sacred text? Was God not able to inspire all of scripture? Was it out of God’s power to do more, perhaps? What is the purpose of providing humanity with a book containing errors, especially with a document of such importance and influence in the world?
I realize these are questions that could hardly be answered in a blog, but these are questions that I have been presented with and I hope they’ll be addressed at the conference.
Thanks for all you do for the CON and the Kingdom!
Peace
Tom,
You correctly recite the history of the OT down to the adding of vowel points. However, your conclusion is less than persuasive. We have found unpointed manuscripts (Dead Seas Scrolls) older than previously known texts. We have had no trouble reading them. There have also been words in the present Hebrew Bible that we have not known what they mean, but context has given a solid basis for speculation. Some of these words have been found in cognate languages such as Ugaritic and have enabled us to translate them more accurately. Your conclusion just does not stand.
Second, I want to agree with you about the problem of the autographs. When Paul wrote to Timothy that scripture is inspired, it is doubtful that Timothy had nor was Paul referring to the autographs. In all probability Timothy like most of the dispersion in Gentile areas of the Mediterranean probably read the LXX. Thus Paul was saying that even a translation was inspired (insight courtesy of Bill McCumber).
Finally, when discussing the autographs of the OT, I like to ask, what is the autograph of the Psalms which were written over a 1000 years? How about Jeremiah? The original was burned by the king. Then Jeremiah wrote or rather dictated an expanded copy, but that was over twenty years before the last events of the book were recorded. Even then the Hebrew tradition grew after Jeremiah died as evidenced when it is compared to the LXX. So, what was the autograph of Jeremiah? The argument for the inerrancy of the autograph has a number of problems. Making the concept a statement of faith as some seem to argue is a corruption of orthodox Christianity.
Bob
Tom
Since you began your spiritual journey in the inerrant camp, I think you need to comfort those more firmly entrenched in the inerrant camp at present.
You are already quite aware that those in this camp, when they read, what they interpret as an affront to inerrancy automatically hear a threat to God Himself. I encourage you to use what you have proposed so well in your writing on the theology of love in conversing with those in the inerrant camp.
What I believe you are simply proposing is a healthy and calm look at God’s holy word. A look that has as its direct purpose to draw a person closer to this same God, who loves us without measure! As God’s word already so aptly tells us, “love covers a multitude of sin.” I know for myself that I initially was so caught up in hearing a threat, that it took me some time to “see” you and really listen to you as a fellow child of God.
Perhaps starting with Jesus’ words in John 13:34-35, would be a good place to begin. No matter our differences in the family of God we are called upon to love each other as our Father so immeasurably loves us.
Tom,
You’ve made your point clearly. A rhetoric and logic of how the Bible functions as authority for Christians emerges from this discussion.
I think “inerrancy” is a bad term and it sidetracks lots of issues, but I affirm the truthfulness of Scripture. I love the word “truth” and wish more would focus on the Bible’s truthfulness and how God speaks truthfully to us through the written Word.
Thanks for another piece of this subject to chew on and think about.
For me, your last sentence speaks the truth: “The message of salvation isn’t based upon and doesn’t require an inerrant book.”
I, too, wish we could find another word. The living, breathing message of God found in the pages of my Bible leads us to Life, despite human inadequate translation. For me, that makes God bigger.
After spending years waiting for the next droplet to spring forth from the fountain of human discovery (as in the errancy/inerrancy discussion), I have to breathe a little and trust.., trust that those involved in scientific methods will find much, encourage with those findings, then ask the living God to show them more in the morning. And before drifting off to sleep, recognize our limits in the searchable and fathomable, and His if any. We’ll all sleep better.
As I was reading several of the comments, I thought about Psalm 119:160, “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
To me, this seems to speak to the search for the “best” word to describe God’s word. The Psalmist says, all of God’s word is truth”. This is what I hear from many of the respondents. Maybe this is the place to begin. We use God’s word to explain God’s word.
My friend Curt Andrews just returned to the USA from a two year tour of duty in Iraq serving with the State Dept. in rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure. He worked with a large number of interpreters every day. Curt found himself facing the daily challenge of transporting thoughts from one language to another. Often all parties involved struggled to make clear the meaning of the thoughts and words spoken. Is it any different for God’s Word? Even though I have studied both Greek and Hebrew and appreciate the understandings that come from language study, it leaves me with both a deep appreciation for Bible translators and a humility that admits we may not have the exact meaning of any particular word, yet we have the confidence that God Word still comes through loud clear enough to enter into the Kingdom
Thanks, Tom, for your posts. For me, the important thing to remember is that the Bible is a signpost, not a hitching post.
Hello Dr. Oord,
It seems that this topic keeps resurfacing. I am wondering why there is constant tension between the “two camps” on the issue of inerrancy. What are the Christian motives for proving that the Bible contains errors? What good comes of it? I understand we should think critically of these things, but what is the goal of such a pursuit? If the goal is so that a person can ignore certain portions of scripture or bend scripture to their own understanding of who God is, then I don’t believe it is a noble pursuit. If it is to help us explain what may have happened to the Bible along the way to nonbelievers who bring this very argument against the faith to the table, then it is a noble pursuit. Using minor errors in the Bible to help a person explain away what are perceived inconsistencies with humanity’s flawed logic seems to be a detriment to the Church as a whole.
Tom,
I confess to be lurking on this issue i wish i had more to say.
Frankly i am grateful for your boldness. I think it is a shame that even suggesting the most minor of biblical errors in mosy wesleyan/ evangelical circles gets one branded something close to heretic.
In my tradition our doctrinal statement on the subject is worded beautifully:
We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.
This leaves us plenty of room for diversity on the subject. But in practice anything short of at least a soft dictation get people ‘talking’.
Tom,
Thanks for your followup article. I’ve had more than one conversation recently about ‘autographs’ and a few surprising conversations about this word ‘inerrant’ that is not in any translation of the Bible I can find.
And it has caused me to read on this subject as well.
My old professor, J.Kenneth Grider wrote an article in 1984 on Wesleyanism and Inerrancy where he stated: “It is on a considerable number of bases that as a Wesleyan evangelical, I hold the confidence that Scripture is inerrant on doctrine and practice, but that it just might contain error on matters relating to mathematics or science or geography or such like.” (WTJ: 1984: 19.2).
I don’t think I’ve ever met a more conservative theologian or prince of a man than Dr. Grider, so I give weight to his words from a few decades ago.
It seems odd that a word like ‘inerrant’ lead some to worship a book as part of a response to today’s issues when this word never graced our own Manual until 1928. Did the use unite us? Divide us?
And even the ‘We Believe” statements by the Board of General Superintendents used Wiley’s ‘plenary’ inspiration that says the Bible as the infallible Word of God and our authority for faith and practice. No use of this ‘troublesome’ word there.
In my own thinking, it seems alien to the text to apply a doctrine that eventually crushes under the weight of its own claims, a failure not of Bible doctrine or ethics but of pressing the Bible to speak to issues it did not address.
To insist that there is a man-made doctrine that protects the Bible from error seems to be something the Bible never needed for itself. Both Old and New Testaments were God breathed documents to reveal the whole counsel of God. Somehow, it seems weird to suggest that words today now protect it or define it.
I believe the Bible speaks today regardless of what words we use to define its authority. Its words have transcended time and language and culture and history and science to speak to each generation about Jesus. Wow!
Thanks for your time and your responses. Scripture conversations led reformers to God moments that forged revivals, reformations and a return to God. May these conversations lead us there again.
Jon
Just wondering what the basis for “salvific” inerrancy would be if other inerrancy is precluded because of human freedom and “symbiosis”? The position that the Bible points us to God or inspires deeper faith seems plausible on your view but any kind of inerrancy doesn’t. Is there something about the process of inspiration that filters out salvific errata but not historical errors or factual inconsistencies?
Personally, I think the glowing praise, perhaps even worship, heaped on the Bible by fundamentalists has resulted in a belief that the Bible is trustworthy, but God is not.
Despite the fact that the Bible says that the church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and that the anointing will protect us from seducers and will be “true, and not a lie” (1 Jn. 2:26-27), it seems that almost no one believes this.
What good is an inerrant Bible we don’t believe?
Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for searching for life in the Scriptures (Jn. 5:39-40).
To answer Ben’s question and conclude my point, the basis for “salvific inerrancy” is what Jesus said—fruit. We have saved the writings of Scripture because of the power of the speakers (and some just for history’s sake), not so that we can follow a text over the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 8:14). We know Paul’s Gospel saves because it saves, not because the Bible is inerrant. It really is “the power of God to salvation” and where it is preached we see a righteousness revealed from faith to faith.
Hi Tom:
I had the pleasure of meeting you briefly at PALCON this past August and I picked up your book Relational Holiness. I am reading it with much hope as I think it represents a new but old paradigm for both our relationship with God (and his with us) as well as our relationship with ourselves and others in the community of faith.
My comments regarding the inerrancy issue focus not so much on inerrancy in the “original” autographs, but the accuracy that has been established via textual criticism of the bible we do have today. With the number of extant ancient manuscripts and the ever-growing understanding of biblical languages isn’t it right to say we have a Bible today that is at least 98% accurate regarding those manuscripts. Granted this, in and of itself, does not speak to inerrancy, but only consensus on textual accuracy that goes back to the near second century CE.
Also, the argument that if God wanted to ensure the bible we have today was inerrant, he could have done so flies somewhat in the face of an open theology position and, I think, is a staw man argument. You are right to be critical of it. In open theology God would no more coerce authors to be perfectly accurate in all aspects (automatic writing) than he would coerce them to be holy.
Many Christians simply don’t understand that there was an “oral” bible (primarily New Testament here as the canon of the Old Testament was more or less already established in second-temple Judaism), the “inerrant in the original autographs” argument must, by the definition of inerrancy used, extend to that pre-written oral traditions as well. The argument for inerrancy cannot rightfully be extrapolated to the oral tradition because many early Christians other than the New Testament authors (the 12 or their direct companions and Paul)would have been the ones telling the gospel story and this weakens, if not removes an integral party of the argument for inerrancy, namely apostolic authority.
I am starting to see and understand some of the things that theologians are noticing about the Bible. As discussed in class, Biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean that the Bible has no authority; we need to look at our own culture and see if the errors really make a difference in how we view the Bible’s authority.
Since the Bible’s current form is much different from the original manuscripts, it is obvious that various inconsistencies or usages of different words in verses are evident. However, just because some words are switched around or are changed, does this mean that the Bible cannot be trusted? If in fact it is inerrant, than that must mean that its credibility is also not to be trusted. Isn’t it true that even though the Bible was written by humans, that the content itself is still God-breathed? Isn’t it true that the Bible holds absolute divine authority? If not, then where does that leave us? The underlying issue here is that the will of God remains the same, so what does it matter that some words differ in various versions of Scripture?
Two years ago this topic was brought up in an Intro to Theology course I was taking. At that time I didn’t pay much attention to it and shrugged it off as “human error”. Now, being presented with this topic, I find it fascinating. I wonder how come my church has never addressed this issue? If it was discussed I bet that there would be many people in disagreement.
In my mind it doesn’t really matter to me if the Bible has errors or not. If God wanted the Bible to be free of errors I’m sure he could of found a creative way to make that happen.
I do agree with Wiley’s “dynamic theory”, because my understanding of God relates to that theory. I don’t believe that God would take over a person’s body, mind, and spirit leaving them with no control and begin to write the Bible. In Michael Lodahl’s, “All Things Necessary to Our Salvation”, in reference to the dynamical theory, theologian Wiley states, “the dynamical theory is a mediating theory…[that] maintains that the sacred writers were given extraordinary aid without any interference with their personal characteristics or activities. It preserves the scriptural truth that God speaks through human agencies, but insists that the agent is not reduced to a mere passive instrument”. When I read that statement the word sacred stands out to me because it sets the authors apart from others. meaning that God chose these people. I have only scratched the surface of Theology and it is becoming of personal interest. I’m glad that there are errors in the Bible-it challenges my faith in a positive way.
I am just a member of the body of Christ. My whole problem with this is I believe based on my faith in Jesus Christ. If I cannot believe that then I am lost. If what was written in the Gospels is not true then none of it is relavant. My faith says that my God is perfect and for Him to let stand lies about Him, His Son, and His Spirit then I must say everyone is lost. If I cannot believe that Adam walked and talked with God then what’s the point. Enoch, Elijah were taken by God can I believe that? Is Abraham really the father of us all and did Noah and his family really begin the new world? I do believe in the inerrancy of the bible regardless of what anyone says. I do believe that I hear the hiss of the serpant in the garden saying “Did God really say?” For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. So where to I stand, I guess you can tell and being a member of the Nazarene Church is a difficult place for me to be right now since this has come to my attention. My the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.
Tom
I was raised in East Tennessee District Church of the Nazarene and still do ministry here. As a youngster, I too was given a very wooden literal reading of scripture. I was called into the ministry and I enrolled in TNU fall 99. As I was at the beginning of my second semester, after having only taken one religion course (Bib Faith) I was thirsting for more. One evening, I made my way to the Benson prayer chapel at the bottom of Benson’s Men dorm. I bowed, prayed, and asked God to stretch me, challenge me and create me into the minister I needed to be. My exact words as I remember, “God give me new knowledge. Push me past the Sunday School lessons of my youth. Give me more than just the ability to regurgitate lessons I have already learned.” It was an intense devotional period.
The next day, I found myself in a NT prof’s office asking questions about premillennial dispensationalism. As one being raised in ET, I was offered a steady diet of Left Behind sermons (I even brought Hal Lindsey’s “Earth: The Final Chapter” to TNU with me). My first “adult” bible was a Scofield Reference Bible. As I got older, beginning with my senior year in High School, I began to have some questions about the “rapture” and interpretation. I went to this prof’s office for answers. After having detailed Scofield’s system, and explaining my concerns, the prof looked at me and said, “You’re right. This doesn’t make sense. Allow me to just speak to you and listen.” The next hour was the most shocking experience of my life. I was told about a thing known as Apocalyptic Literature and its history and function. I was told of a book about liturgy and poetry. I went looking for answers from within my existing paradigm. I was not looking for a whole new perspective! I left his office being shaken to my core. The prof gave me a book to read. So in one hand I held Eugene Peterson’s text “Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying imagination”. In the other hand, I held my Christian life. I remember walking across the parking lot to Benson, my world turned upside down, as I was now beginning the process of theological maturity. All my questions that led to this encounter occurred as I honestly read text and heard sermons.
I spent the next several weeks reading Peterson. The following semester, fall 2000, I took Apocalyptic Lit. That semester, I read Revelation 7 different times in one sitting each. I began to hear a text speak to me, that heretofore had created fear and anxiety within me. I grew up fearing the tribulation, fearing plagues, fearing the rapture, having Christianity scared into me by folks that read Revelation (and subsequently all of scripture) literally. I had bad dreams and was mentally tortured by these images. But now, I was reading it as poetic praise, hearing its words of hope, joy and the glorious victory of the lamb. I was encouraged by the two witnesses and resonated with John as he ate the scroll. The book became functional and it did so because I did not read it literally (at that time I was not aware of the few hundred grammatical mistakes in the Greek).
For the first time in my life, I actually wept over the Revelation of John and was blessed by its words.
I think there are many folks that think us “evil” postmoderns intellectually ascend to positions of salvific errancy. That we work out a system of an open God or a process theology and then force our idea of text to coincide with our “heretical” post-modern ideas. That is simply not the case.
This is not how it started for me. It first started with an experience in a dorm chapel, a prayer and God answering that prayer by placing my life into the hands of teachers. The freedom to not read the text literally, eventually liberated the entire biblical text from the Cartesian straighjacket of our fellow fundamentalist brothers and sisters. The text was free, to be the text and to be the human creation it actually is. Barth’s idea of the Word of God and Word of man resonated with me, as God speaks through fallible human words to give us a divine word from above. I had been released from Barth’s indicted “paper pope” and scripture became dynamic. The text was inspired not because the Torah was written by Moses as an amanuensis of God, but because God continues to use and save the world through and by it.
As our Nazarene tradition is so apt to emphasize our experience, my experience led me to the reasonable application of reflecting upon the text through tradition. The quadrilateral was taking shape in my life. I did not choose to throw off the safety and security net of inerrancy, God chose to caste it off of me…and in return disclosed the depth of the riches of God’s love, goodness and freedom. To mention Luther, I must join him in regards to my position on the errancy of scripture. “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Thanks be to God.
Speaking of inerrancy, READ The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (And Why Inerrancy Tries To Hide It)
By Thom Stark, came out this month!
http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Human_Faces_of_God_What_Scripture_Reveals_When_It_Gets_God_Wrong_And_Why_Inerrancy_Tries_To_Hide_It
Tom
Good job. Thanks!
Dave
Salvation is the message of the Bible, and it comes out clearly from our Bible, whether it is inerrant or not. If people can learn to love God and love others without following a perfectly inerrant Bible, there should not be a big focus on needing to have an absolutely inerrant Bible. I think people focus too much on trying to prove or argue that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, and do not think about the implications of an absolutely inerrant Bible. It does not matter if the Bible is inerrant as long as it inerrantly reveals everything necessary to salvation.
I had a very difficult discussion the other day about this topic with an individual who holds himself to be an atheist. He believes that religion is for the weak, and when hearing that I believed that the scriptures were inerrant, he said that was to follow something blindly and it was hypocritical. Despite what it may sound like, this was a very intriguing and positive conversation as a whole. Bottom line though, I struggled with knowing what exactly to say in response to that. Spending so much time studying theology has helped aid in me finding a rational approach to parts of my faith and in the discovering of why it is and what it is I believe. So when he he made this claim, I couldn’t help but wonder if this belief in inerrant scriptures isn’t partially irrational when we cannot count on absolutely everything it says?