Biblical inerrancy

[spacebrat311]

I'd like to explore this point further, which may require a separate thread. But in short: what do you take exception with? That Grudem believes the Bible to be inerrant, or that Grudem believes that the Biblical authors' words are as weighty of those of Jesus? Or am I misrepresenting your position?

It may well need to branch out. I take issue with both of these positions, but one much more so than the other. The problem with scriptural inerrancy is that scripture itself makes no claim to this, nor does anyone really until western Fundamentalism shows up. Scripture regards itself, (as does older church tradition, and, as we see in his interactions, Jesus) as authoritative over any other human work, and as a divinely inspired interaction between the Word of God (as revealed in the person of Jesus) and human response. The idea of inerrancy relies on at least some variant o the "typewriter" hypothesis, wherein the Bible is the word of God because it is literally God's message to humanity given through human writers- in essence a denial of the authorship of the human writer as anything other than a medium. This is contrasted with older (better, imo) theological assertions of authority or inallibility- authority meaning scripture is the basis of our understanding of God, infallibility meaning that the scriptures, as collected works, will not fail, aka even the mistakes or contradictions inherent in a human response to the work of God serve its purpose as a work of testament or response, and therefore are not failings in any meaningful sense.

While I am against inerrancy, and believe it leads quickly to the kind of idolization that Grudem maintains, inerrancy does not necessarily imply this. My disagreement with inerrancy as a doctrine does not often hinder my ability to usefully dialogue with those who believe in it, especially since most proponents of inerrancy are usually advocating some kind of cross between inerrancy and infallibility and authority rather than pure inerrancy doctrine. Once you place the Bible on the same level as Jesus, however, I believe that you are creating an idol, and therefore blaspheming in a very real sense.

[Vlad!]

The problem with scriptural inerrancy is that scripture itself makes no claim to this, nor does anyone really until western Fundamentalism shows up.

Obviously New-Testament Jews regarded the scripture very highly (2 Peter 1:19-21), and indeed considered the writings of the apostles as equivalent with scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). If Old Testament scripture is accurate down to the minutest detail (Matthew 5:18), the bar is obviously very high for scriptural accuracy.

[spacebrat311]

High regard for authority and infallibility and high standards for an accurately reproduced text does not equal inerrancy doctrine.

It should be noted that I mean Fundamentalism in the sense of the theological movement, not in the pejorative sense of "anyone more conservative that I think is rational."

[Vlad!]

High regard for authority and infallibility and high standards for an accurately reproduced text does not equal inerrancy doctrine.

It seems to me that you are now guilty of misrepresenting these passages to suit your own interpretation. When I read 2 Peter 1, I don't see "oh, the scriptures are the possibly flawed writings of humans", I see "God's Spirit authored the prophecies in the scriptures through the prophets".

I'm not saying these scriptures even apply to the entire Bible (2 Peter 1, for instance, specifically addresses scriptural prophecy), but I certainly wanted to point them out in light of your assertion that inerrancy is a modern construct with no scriptural support. I don't think it's unreasonable to take from these scriptures that at least some of the Bible is inerrant in the sense that you describe above.

[spacebrat311]

Prophecy is prophecy. It the Bible is authoritative, and claims that prophetic word is by definition a form of "the divine typewriter" then sure, that makes sense. I don't see this as making any claims about the inerrancy of scripture as a whole, however, which is what I mean by that.

[Vlad!]

OK, so there does not appear to be direct scriptural support for whole-Bible inerrancy. I can buy that.

[Josh]

Well, the Bible does claim that "all Scripture is God breathed," which seems to me like a pretty ringing endorsement for inerrancy.

[Aaron]

Does "God breathed" mean that the men writing the scriptures couldn't mess up?

[bloop]

Also, does "all Scripture is God-breathed" refer to specific texts?  (Regardless, I don't really buy this as an argument for inerrancy, but maybe for infallibility)

[Josh]

Does "God breathed" mean that the men writing the scriptures couldn't mess up?

Yes, because God doesn't mess up. And to bloop's question: Contextually, no, I think the general consensus is that it doesn't specify texts.

What's at stake here, of course, is pretty major: To deny that God divinely inspired, preserved, and protected His revealed Word is to deny that He is sovereign. If the Scriptures contain errors, or if there's a chance that the human authors "messed up" or that something was lost in translation, then of course we cannot trust anything the Bible has to say about salvation or the character of God-- because, after all, there COULD be a mistake. Thus, we don't know anything for certain, and, as such, we have no assurance in our own salvation or in the unchanging character of God Himself.

It is crucial to believe that, if God has a revelation He wants mankind to have, then He will ensure that it is recorded, translated, and passed along without error-- which He has.

[dgp11776]

I'm with you 100%, Mr. Hurst.  And you said it better than I could, so I won't say anything.

[bethany]

I'm also with Josh, as long as we're throwing down on one side or another.

[bloop]

I'm not quite, but I'm pretty sure I've gone over this one before.

[Vlad!]

God allows his people to mess up, even though it hurts him to let us do so. However, he can still work through that to lead to good. I think this is the root of the infallibility idea: that even though the Bible was written by fallible humans, it still somehow says what God wanted it to say.

It is crucial to believe that, if God has a revelation He wants mankind to have, then He will ensure that it is recorded, translated, and passed along without error-- which He has.

I agree with this. I certainly can't speak for spacebrat or his doctrine, but if we can't trust the message of the Bible then our faith is meaningless.

However, I also find that there are parts of the Bible that are very challenging because it requires some serious twisting and turning for them to seem even remotely true or for them to match up with other parts of the same Bible[1]. There are linguistic turns of phrase that, when taken at face value, are contradictory[2]. There are even portions of the text that, again when taken at face value, seem very out of place in the Bible[3].

Also, thinking specifically of the Old Testament, not all (or even most) of those books constitute what I would call a 'revelation'. The first half in particular represents primarily a historical account, and is probably subject to the same issues of all historical accounts. The early portions of Genesis specifically have more in common with other world mythologies and oral histories than with any sort of accurate account. I would not find it to be a particular challenge to my faith, for example, to find out that accounts of the Biblical flood were greatly exaggerated or perhaps didn't even happen at all [4].

I think this is the root of the infallibility versus inerrancy debate.

[1] Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Compare the text of these three passages. Also, look at what Jesus seems to be saying here. Do you believe it can be taken at face value? What did the listeners think when they heard it? What would you think if you were standing there hearing those words?
[2] An example of this would be Hebrews 4:16, "approach the throne of grace with confidence" when compared with I Timothy 6:16 "lives in unapproachable light".
[3] I am thinking specifically of Hebrews 6:4-6. Those who believe in the perseverance of the saints must have a lot of trouble with this one; those who don't generally are still OK with the idea that someone might leave the church for a time and then be restored to the fellowship.
[4] I mean think about it. It's physically impossible for enough water to fall from the skies in 40 days to cover the face of the earth. Even if there was massive tectonic shifting and the water level rose along with the falling of the rain, where did all the water go? I am not much concerned about the answer to these questions because the flood story has very little bearing on my faith in the saving power of Jesus.

EDIT: Corrected a citation that was wrong

[Vlad!]

I'm not quite, but I'm pretty sure I've gone over this one before.

That's OK. It's been too long since we had a serious theological throwdown

[Josh]

Also, thinking specifically of the Old Testament, not all (or even most) of those books constitute what I would call a 'revelation'. The first half in particular represents primarily a historical account, and is probably subject to the same issues of all historical accounts.

Well, even these historical accounts contain within them revelations about God's character. And thinking specifically about, say, the creation narrative, since it's a historical event that only God could possibly know about, I think it constitutes a revelation when He chooses to share that information with us.

The early portions of Genesis specifically have more in common with other world mythologies and oral histories than with any sort of accurate account.

Well, certainly, these passages are "myths" in terms of their literary character, and they are written according to the literary conventions of the cultures in which they were written. I don't think that has any bearing on whether they are factually true, however. (What's that C.S. Lewis phrase about Christianity? That it's "a myth turned true," or something like that?)

Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Compare the text of these three passages. Also, look at what Jesus seems to be saying here. Do you believe it can be taken at face value? What did the listeners think when they heard it? What would you think if you were standing there hearing those words?]
[1] Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Compare the text of these three passages. Also, look at what Jesus seems to be saying here. Do you believe it can be taken at face value? What did the listeners think when they heard it? What would you think if you were standing there hearing those words?

Given that 11 out of the 12 disciples were alive to witness God rending the heavens and defeating death itself (in the resurrection of our Lord), I don't think there's any big stretch here. His talk of the kindgom here does not necessarily mean the fullness of the kingdom.

An example of this would be Hebrews 4:6, "approach the throne of grace with confidence" when compared with I Timothy 6:16 "lives in unapproachable light".

We approach the throne of grace with confidence not in ourselves, but in our Mediator; we ourselves cannot approach the light of God's face on our own, but we have a Mediator who can. So I don't think there's any contradiction at all.

I am thinking specifically of Hebrews 6:4-6. Those who believe in the perseverance of the saints must have a lot of trouble with this one; those who don't generally are still OK with the idea that someone might leave the church for a time and then be restored to the fellowship.

I think it's a simple matter of true, saving faith versus an outward but non-salvific faith. I think this passage is speaking of members of the visible church, but not necessarily of true believers.

I mean think about it. It's physically impossible for enough water to fall from the skies in 40 days to cover the face of the earth. Even if there was massive tectonic shifting and the water level rose along with the falling of the rain, where did all the water go? I am not much concerned about the answer to these questions because the flood story has very little bearing on my faith in the saving power of Jesus.

Of course, the answer to this question relies on a willingness to ascent to supernaturalism, which I realize is not necessarily a satisfying answer-- particularly not to someone who is scientifically inclined-- but I don't think that makes it a bad answer either. Fwiw, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the belief that certain parts of Genesis are allegorical, though I myself do not believe that.

[Vlad!]

Given that 11 out of the 12 disciples were alive to witness God rending the heavens and defeating death itself (in the resurrection of our Lord), I don't think there's any big stretch here. His talk of the kindgom here does not necessarily mean the fullness of the kingdom.

Yeah, I think that's the standard answer, and may well be true...but it seems like a strange thing to say, if so. Wouldn't he say "most of those standing here" or "all but one of those standing here"? And when I think "son of man coming in his kingdom", I don't think Jesus' resurrection, I think the second coming of Christ where he ushers in the end of days.

We approach the throne of grace with confidence not in ourselves, but in our Mediator; we ourselves cannot approach the light of God's face on our own, but we have a Mediator who can. So I don't think there's any contradiction at all.

Again, I didn't say these things can't be explained. However, the passage clearly says "we approach the throne of grace" (also, I said Hebrews 4:6. That's a typo; it's supposed to be Hebrews 4:16). It doesn't say anything about a mediator--we are left to infer it from other parts of the text. And the I Timothy passage doesn't say "unapproachable except by this list of people". I'm not saying that these constitute a true Biblical contradiction, merely that when Paul was writing to Timothy he was caught up in his doxology and didn't literally mean that nobody can approach the throne of God--we see in Isaiah, for instance, that the throne of God has seraphim around it. How do we know this? Because we have the entire Bible and can reconcile troublesome passages with the rest of the text (this is the 'human interpretation' side of the coin that spacebrat mentioned earlier--not only was the Bible written by fallible humans, it is interpreted by fallible humans. The very fact that we're having this discussion is proof enough on this point).

I think it's a simple matter of true, saving faith versus an outward but non-salvific faith. I think this passage is speaking of members of the visible church, but not necessarily of true believers.

So what are you saying, then? I don't know about you, but I 'played church' for many years before I actually developed a saving faith in Jesus Christ and got baptized. Are you saying that people who "share in the Holy Spirit" (since the Spirit is given at baptism, as Peter says, then I read this as people who were baptized) and who confess to believe in Jesus cannot be saved?

I prefer the 'infallible and authoritative' stance simply because there's too much of the Bible that I can't adequately explain. I'd rather focus on the obvious direction that the text in a whole is pointing--towards Christ--rather than get caught up in the minutae. After all, if the Bible really is 100% direct word of God, why is it that the different gospels differ on minor details[1]?

I don't feel like infallibility versus inerrancy compromises the faith or the Biblical message. The history of the people of Israel and Christianity is one of God working through weaknesses and failures. I think the Bible reflects this. I don't think it was designed to be picked apart word by word so much as that the words are designed to be taken as parts of a cohesive whole.

[1] As an example, see the passage I give above that's recorded in three of the four gospels. The wording is noticeably different. Also note Eph 4:8--Paul misquotes Psalm 68:18. Perhaps intentionally, but even so, I think it is ample evidence for this point.

[NewDimension]

What's at stake here, of course, is pretty major: To deny that God divinely inspired, preserved, and protected His revealed Word is to deny that He is sovereign. If the Scriptures contain errors, or if there's a chance that the human authors "messed up" or that something was lost in translation, then of course we cannot trust anything the Bible has to say about salvation or the character of God-- because, after all, there COULD be a mistake. Thus, we don't know anything for certain, and, as such, we have no assurance in our own salvation or in the unchanging character of God Himself.

I agree with this to a certain extent, given the fact that I felt like an agnostic to some degree because of it for a certain period of time; which then led me to research the historical validity of the gospel accounts. I still wrestle with different aspects of my faith at times. However, I don't think that you have to believe that the Bible, as we know it today, is 100% inerrant, in order to be saved and have a firm and unwavering foundation in the core aspects of the Christian faith. For me, there's too many factors to take into consideration to believe that the Bible is completely inerrant-- though, through the scriptures I believe God has delivered to us His message of salvation and divinely inspired revelation. Many passages of scripture are seemingly paradoxical, in and of themselves. Much of the Bible is filled with history and personal testimonies which reflect the writers interrpretation and perspective of 1) God's message, 2) and the situations that occured. And I don't believe that fallible humans, with limited and incomplete perspectives and abilities, have necessarily made absolutely zero errors (or outright contradictions- when compared to other passages of scripture) in the writing, interrpretaton, and translation of God's message.

[spacebrat311]

"Well, even these historical accounts contain within them revelations about God's character. And thinking specifically about, say, the creation narrative, since it's a historical event that only God could possibly know about, I think it constitutes a revelation when He chooses to share that information with us."

Maybe. It seems structurally clear from the way the narrative is composed that the creation myth serves as more of an identity statement than a historical one. The way each element is composed specifically to speak to surrounding religions and say "we are not that" is rather telling, at least to me (the sun being called the greater light and not dignified with a name or with deity for example) that Genesis serves its primary purpose as something other than a historical account. It instead means to tell us who God is, and who we are as humans in relation to him. The fact that it is structured to include overlap, suggesting that multiple versions were around and the author did not wish to leave them out (we see this technique repeatedly in the OT- most scholars believe that David first meets Saul twice, for instance, because there were two dominant traditions of their meeting and the authors wanted to preserve both traditions rather than choosing a 'correct' one) also says something to me.

For me the humanness and contradiction of the Bible isn't an issue, but in fact a strength, and I think that if we did have a perfect, divinely inspired book I would be a lot more suspicious. This is because God, in his fullness, is always bigger than our descriptions of him, and therefore there could be no such thing as his Word and will perfectly composed in our languages. We need contradiction, dichotomy, all the messiness of human viewpoints to see the mountain from multiple angles, as it were, and to remind us that every way we describe God is provisional, a working definition at best.

[NewDimension]

For me the humanness and contradiction of the Bible isn't an issue, but in fact a strength, and I think that if we did have a perfect, divinely inspired book I would be a lot more suspicious. This is because God, in his fullness, is always bigger than our descriptions of him, and therefore there could be no such thing as his Word and will perfectly composed in our languages. We need contradiction, dichotomy, all the messiness of human viewpoints to see the mountain from multiple angles, as it were, and to remind us that every way we describe God is provisional, a working definition at best.

I completely agree with this. The contradictions within the Bible show us the incompleteness of man, they do not cancel out the sovereignty of God.

[Josh]

The idea that the "contradictions" (of which I'm still unconvinced that there are any) doesn't work because the Bible is not ABOUT humans, or "humanness"-- it's ultimately, centrally, about God. Indeed, it is-- as Christian orthodoxy and the Bible itself both teach-- the Word of God; thus, if there are contradictions in it, there must also be contradictions in God. The man-centered notion that the Scriptures are somehow a reflection of man, rather than a reflection of their Author, completely misreads the entire character and nature of what Scripture is.

And again, if there are "contradictions" in the Bible, how can we really be sure of any of it? I mean, if there is seriously a contradiction about, say, whether we can lose our salvation... well, what are we to believe? How are we to live? How can we possibly be confident in our own salvation? How can we ever know peace? The Bible refers to itself as a message of peace, yet if I can't be sure that what it teaches about God is correct, there's no peace at all.

[spacebrat311]

Indeed, it is-- as Christian orthodoxy and the Bible itself both teach-- the Word of God

Excuse me?

Christian orthodoxy most certainly does not teach that the Bible is the Word of God. Containing the word, or divinely inspired, sure, but its idolization as the capital-W word, on par with Jesus himself, and possibly the kerygma, no. This idea is unique to a 20th Century Fundamentalist viewpoint, and isn't universal even within that particular sect. Don't confuse one recent theological movement for orthodoxy.

And the Bible? The Bible doesn't even speak about itself as a single unified work, much less call itself the word of God.

You're making claims that fit your ideas of what the Bible is or should be and ascribing them to orthodoxy and the Bible arbitrarily. Feels goofy, man.

[Aaron]

Christ is the Word of God.

[spacebrat311]

Christ is the Word of God.

This.

[NewDimension]

The idea that the "contradictions" (of which I'm still unconvinced that there are any) doesn't work because the Bible is not ABOUT humans, or "humanness"-- it's ultimately, centrally, about God.

If you don't want to call those passages "contradictions," then I would most certainly say that the scriptures, as a unified collection, contain passages which are very seemingly paradoxical by nature. Does that mean there's no explanation for those types of passages? No. I believe there's some sort of explanation for everything within the Bible; whether that's a spiritual/metaphorical explanation or a natural/literal/logical one, or one that indicates that the writers, not God Himself, made some possible errors or lacked needed clarity in their writing/perception/translation. However, I'm not certain that, we, in our limited perception, will necessariliy attain the 100% accurate explanation to the seemingly contradictory passages-- when only God knows the complete and fully accurate answers. But I do believe that by analyzing the original intent of the author for each particular piece of scripture, and studying the history and culture of those times, and trying to understand the message God was intending to relay to us, that the Bible does point to many possible explanations to seemingly contradictory passages.

We also have to remember that not every author of each particular book of the Bible wrote with another authors' book in mind, which can naturally lead to contradictory statements. Look at the eyewitness accounts for the gospels alone. You basically hear the same story told in ways that may seem contradictory at first glance. If you ask eyewitnesses at a car accident what exactly happened, you're likely to receive very differing perspectives that may sound contradictory. That does not mean the car accident didn't happen; or that each eyewitness account doesn't contain crucial information as to how, why, and what happened. In the same way each author and eyewitness contains important information about who God is and what His message is; that does not necessarily mean that they are completely accurate with every iota of their perception, writing, or translation of that information they've received/seen/heard/experienced.

Also, I'm not insinuating that the message God is trying to relay to us through scriptures is solely about humans and not Him. Although, I do not believe that every text of scripture was necessarily written (by the human) with an intent of solely describing something from/for God's perspective.

Indeed, it is-- as Christian orthodoxy and the Bible itself both teach-- the Word of God; thus, if there are contradictions in it, there must also be contradictions in God.

I don't believe God, or our faith in Christ, is completely limited to contradictions within Bible.
                           

The man-centered notion that the scriptures are somehow a reflection of man, rather than a reflection of their Author, completely misreads the entire character and nature of what Scripture is.

It's not an entirely man-centered notion. Nearly every page of the Bible is filled with descriptions about mankind, various individuals, their life stories and  personal history, overviews of genealogies, etc.. There's plenty of reflections about mankind within the scriptures. That's not to say that the scriptures aren't intended to be a reflection of God. Naturally, if God uses someone to spread His message, the presence of the messenger will also be known. The only time this notion becomes completely man-centered, is when people believe that everything about the Bible is only reflecting men and has absolutely nothing to do with God divinely revealing Himself to mankind.

And again, if there are "contradictions" in the Bible, how can we really be sure of any of it? I mean, if there is seriously a contradiction about, say, whether we can lose our salvation... well, what are we to believe? How are we to live? How can we possibly be confident in our own salvation? How can we ever know peace? The Bible refers to itself as a message of peace, yet if I can't be sure that what it teaches about God is correct, there's no peace at all.

There may not be peace if you haven't yet obtained a satisfiable answer to a seemingly contradictory passage, but that does not mean you won't arrive at a satisfiable and/or accurate answer to your dilemma sometime in the future. Also, some answers may never be revealed to us since we will never obtain omniscience. However, this does not mean that God cannot work His peace and faith within us inspite of our knowledge of passages which appear contradictory to us at the time. We also have to remember that several mistakes within the Bible does not necessarily make the entire Bible inaccurate; though we might be inclined to think that if we have uncover many errors within the text.

[Josh]

Christ is the Word of God.

Right-- the Logos. That same Greek term is used for the written Scriptures, as well, to denote that the written Word flows from-- is, indeed, directly connected to-- the Living, Risen Christ. Both are the Revelation of God.

And this is not a recent development, but, rather, the central idea of the very Reformation, one held by Calvin and Luther et al.

[spacebrat311]

Sort of. Not really. That's a really weird way of understanding that development that I'm not really sure how to comment on, because, well, its just one of the weirder ways of understanding that little piece of history, or that word usage, that I've ever heard. I'd have to figure out what you pieced that together from.

[Josh]

I pieced it together from a seminary education and a natural reading of the Bible. 

[spacebrat311]

Uh huh. The very term 'natural reading' speaks volumes.

[spacebrat311]

Ok, I'm at a loss. I really have zero idea where you're getting this Bible as Word idea, and I've been poring over my church history books and the interwebs trying to find someone who shares this interpretation and I've come up with nothing. Want to help me out? Point me to some sources?

[Josh]

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 (specifically 1-2, 4-6, and 8)

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter... oh, let's go with VII, though you could really pick just about any of 'em.

If nothing else, I think you'll find that the view of Scripture as the Word of God is about as historic and orthodox as Christian theology gets.

[spacebrat311]

Lets assume for a second that what you mean by Word of God (the second member of the Trinity, aka God's revelation of himself to man) is exactly what these documents mean. I disagree completely, but that's a much longer post than I have time for right now.

But making the assumptive stretch to say that that's the case, then you are also asserting that:

- A couple of reactionary 1600s era Calvinist documents constitute some useful sense of orthodoxy or history, the 1600 years of Christianity before it be damned- as well as any non-Calvinists or non-Reformed bodies. The Westminster Confession argues that the Pope is the Antichrist. Surely you wouldn't claim that THAT is an orthodox position. Essentially you're positing Calvin as the arbiter of orthodoxy.

- You're asserting that contradiction and paradox is somehow the antithesis of the second person of the Trinity, which is also an idea that I can't get behind. The man who was both whole and broken, justice and grace, God and man is quite literally is embodied in contradiction. It sounds like you want a God you can understand in terms of human logic, and for someone who is so wary of human-centered ideas that seems silly.

[murlough23]

Does Biblical inerrancy imply the literal truth of every statement in the Bible? (In other words, does the belief that the the placement of every single letter was mandated by the hand of God Himself necessarily lead us to the conclusion that every statement contained within is to be taken literally?) I had understood these to be two completely separate issues, but I wasn't 100% sure if that was the case.

The thing about inerrancy is that while I might not adhere to that belief myself, I don't really have a problem with the idea of it, so long as it's not used to reduce the Bible to merely a set of factual statements with no regard for the concepts of metaphor, poetry, and cultural context. Meaning that the Bible could be 100% mistake-free and inspired by God, but those of us who are reading it literally could still be reading it wrong in some cases.

And then there's also the issue of whether specific translations are inerrant. Which would be a much more bold (and I think, dangerous) claim to make. (For example, even if I accepted that the original manuscripts were written by the hand of God Himself, I wouldn't accept this about Old-School King James or any other translation into a language that didn't even exist at the time that the original manuscripts were written. To have a truly "literal" understanding in many cases requires a fair amount of study of the original language and its various idioms and expressions.)

But then I also have a problem with people taking the position that it's not literal and then using that as license to ignore the parts of the Bible that are uncomfortable to read and/or difficult to obey.

[Vlad!]

Does Biblical inerrancy imply the literal truth of every statement in the Bible?... Meaning that the Bible could be 100% mistake-free and inspired by God, but those of us who are reading it literally could still be reading it wrong in some cases.

Mandating that the Bible is 100% literally true is very dangerous, because there are a huge number of statements that, when taken literally, are flat-out wrong. For example, Jesus didn't destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. People who say that the Bible should be taken at face value, no allegory or metaphor, and devoid of cultural interpretation are setting themselves up for failure. I think most reasonable people would agree that regardless of whether the book is 100% accurate, there are parts which are not meant to be taken literally.

And then there's also the issue of whether specific translations are inerrant. Which would be a much more bold (and I think, dangerous) claim to make. (For example, even if I accepted that the original manuscripts were written by the hand of God Himself, I wouldn't accept this about Old-School King James or any other translation into a language that didn't even exist at the time that the original manuscripts were written. To have a truly "literal" understanding in many cases requires a fair amount of study of the original language and its various idioms and expressions.)

Most translations are, as you suggest, far from inerrant. In fact, some contain intentional inaccuracies due to tradition, and many differ from one-another in certain respects. For instance, traditionally it is said that Moses parted the Red Sea, but textually pretty much all reliable manuscripts say Sea of Reeds, Yam Suph. It is unlikely that the body of water translated Red Sea was the same body of water we today call the Red Sea.

I also recall a time when my brother and I were reading the book of I Kings aloud to one-another, he reading from the ESV (or perhaps NASB, I don't recall exactly) and I reading from the NIV. There was one instance when a word was translated as 'baboon' in NIV and 'peacock' in ESV...probably, the translators have no idea what animal that specific ancient Hebrew word refers to and each one chose a different contextually- and culturally-appropriate animal[1].

But then I also have a problem with people taking the position that it's not literal and then using that as license to ignore the parts of the Bible that are uncomfortable to read and/or difficult to obey.

That's really the balancing act, isn't it? You don't want to open the door up to rejecting the less-appealing parts of the Bible, but you also want to be conscious of context and of the number of failure points between origin and the words sitting there on the page we're looking at. As with most things, there's no ritualistic or formulaic answer that you can plug in and get what you want out of it. You just have to engage your brain without neglecting your faith and the illuminating light of the Spirit.

[1] Ref: compare NIV with ESV.

[murlough23]

Mandating that the Bible is 100% literally true is very dangerous, because there are a huge number of statements that, when taken literally, are flat-out wrong.

Indeed. And on top of that, there's the question of whether you truly can read it literally in the first place, without your own cultural biases and understanding of certain words, etc., coloring your perception of the meaning. (Like reading passage that would seem to endorse slavery if taken literally. Slavery was a very different concept in Bible days - more of an indentured servitude thing. It doesn't really take a ton of seminary classes to understand that, but if you have to go to the trouble of making sure you understand the intended interpretation of a word, I would be so bold as to say you're no longer reading literally.

I think most reasonable people would agree that regardless of whether the book is 100% accurate, there are parts which are not meant to be taken literally.

Perhaps. Depends on your definition of "reasonable". But then it raises the question of what parts should taken literally, and how we make that distinction.

Most translations are, as you suggest, far from inerrant. In fact, some contain intentional inaccuracies due to tradition, and many differ from one-another in certain respects. For instance, traditionally it is said that Moses parted the Red Sea, but textually pretty much all reliable manuscripts say Sea of Reeds, Yam Suph. It is unlikely that the body of water translated Red Sea was the same body of water we today call the Red Sea.

I guess I should narrow down my criteria, since obviously all translations within a single language are going to differ from one another and therefore it's pretty incredible to expect that any two could be "inerrant" at the same time. I suppose my question is whether a single "inerrant" English translation even exists, and if so, what's our basis for believing that. ("All Scripture is God-breathed" isn't enough, because there's no way a passage written in the 1st century could be intended to refer to a translation written over a century later. But then, I think it's circular reasoning to quote that passage to refer to anything beyond the Old Testament in the first place.)

I also recall a time when my brother and I were reading the book of I Kings aloud to one-another, he reading from the ESV (or perhaps NASB, I don't recall exactly) and I reading from the NIV. There was one instance when a word was translated as 'baboon' in NIV and 'peacock' in ESV...probably, the translators have no idea what animal that specific ancient Hebrew word refers to and each one chose a different contextually- and culturally-appropriate animal[1].

Clearly one of them is flat out wrong. (Or potentially both of them.) But that in and of itself isn't sufficient to rule out the possibility of there being an inerrant English translation at all. That's really what I'm curious about, to see whether people who believe in Biblical inerrancy believe this is possible for the translation they're actually reading. Because my guess is that most of 'em don't know how to read Greek or Hebrew.

That's really the balancing act, isn't it?

Christians HATE balancing acts. As Derek Webb puts it, "Don't teach me about moderation and liberty. I prefer a shot of grape juice." It's like the only options are to go to one extreme or the other. You know, the whole slippery slope argument. Question the literal truth of one single passage in the Bible, and next thing you know you're sacrificing virgins and worshiping Satan while drinking their blood!

You don't want to open the door up to rejecting the less-appealing parts of the Bible, but you also want to be conscious of context and of the number of failure points between origin and the words sitting there on the page we're looking at.

I don't think a lot of Christians have really taken the time to realize that such "failure points" could even possibly exist. They're just simply not aware of all of the iterations that the text has been through between the original writers and us. Some of them have heard skeptics bring up stuff like that, and it's like the automatic response is to think you're somehow doubting God by entertaining the notion that something might have changed along the way. (Clearly, that only happened with those other heretical translations that you were taught not to read. ) I believe that it's possible for a text to go through that much copying and translating with the true meaning of it still intact. But because of the transition process to get from A to B, I figure it's fair to assume that some of the work might be up to me to get deeper into the context of what was being said and what the audience it was originally written for understood it to mean. Otherwise, honestly, why even bother with Bible studies? What deeper meaning is there to get if the truth is supposed to be literally obvious to my fallible mind right away?

As with most things, there's no ritualistic or formulaic answer that you can plug in and get what you want out of it. You just have to engage your brain without neglecting your faith and the illuminating light of the Spirit.

You're gonna lose most of the Church at the word "brain", I think.

NP: "Already Gone", The Violet Burning

[Vlad!]

I suppose my question is whether a single "inerrant" English translation even exists, and if so, what's our basis for believing that.

If there were, I'm not sure how we would tell.

("All Scripture is God-breathed" isn't enough, because there's no way a passage written in the 1st century could be intended to refer to a translation written over a century later. But then, I think it's circular reasoning to quote that passage to refer to anything beyond the Old Testament in the first place.)

I don't know if I agree with that; after all, the New Testament is also self-referential (you can see examples quoted earlier in this thread), and I don't think it's unreasonable that Paul was referring to the known New Testament as well (and possibly even things which hadn't even been written yet; we know that Paul received a lot of divine revelation).

Clearly one of them is flat out wrong. (Or potentially both of them.) But that in and of itself isn't sufficient to rule out the possibility of there being an inerrant English translation at all.

No, but it's certainly enough to cast doubt that your (or my) version of choice is that inerrant translation.

Christians HATE balancing acts....You're gonna lose most of the Church at the word "brain", I think.

I share your frustration, but I also feel it necessary to point out that the Church is the body of Christ. I think despite its (and our) occasional failings, it deserves some respect.

[murlough23]

If there were, I'm not sure how we would tell.

And that's exactly the question I'd pose to someone who believes their preferred English translation to be inerrant.

I don't know if I agree with that; after all, the New Testament is also self-referential (you can see examples quoted earlier in this thread), and I don't think it's unreasonable that Paul was referring to the known New Testament as well (and possibly even things which hadn't even been written yet; we know that Paul received a lot of divine revelation).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while the Bible may reiterate the fact that it is the genuine Word of God, this alone isn't sufficient to prove that it is. You can't use your premise to prove your premise. It's stating something that I do believe to be truth, but my reason for believing it to be true is not just because it says so.

Also, regarding future texts, there's the issue of what got chosen to be part of the canon and what didn't. At some point we came to accept a certain set of writings as "Scripture". I'm willing to accept those as God's Word. The reasons for choosing them make good sense to me. The reasons for not choosing some of the stuff that didn't get included also generally make sense to me. But those who chose some books while rejecting others needed a litmus other than what Paul said to figure that out.

No, but it's certainly enough to cast doubt that your (or my) version of choice is that inerrant translation.

Indeed. I think any wise student of the Bible would probably be best off checking against multiple translations when something is tricky to understand, or is widely debated, etc. (I happen to like reading The Message. It's easy to read, and I enjoy the use of colloquial language. But there's no way in hell I'd let that be the only version of the Bible I ever studied. I wouldn't change my view on an issue based on that translation without seeing if several others seemed to back up my understanding of it. I just assume from the get-go that there might be some errors in translation because the aim there is to get the gist of it across in language that is familiar to the modern English speaker. Some nuances are naturally going to be lost; others may perhaps be gained by the less formal/rigorous translation that aims to express "the general idea" by paraphrasing it.)

I share your frustration, but I also feel it necessary to point out that the Church is the body of Christ. I think despite its (and our) occasional failings, it deserves some respect.

I respect Christ. I respect the actions of those who allow themselves to be teachable and who can humbly admit that they don't have the ultimate truth all figured out yet. But the body of Christ is made up of humans. And it is human nature to be selfish, to want an easy way out, and to let your mind color things so that they work out the way you want them to. I have very little trust in human nature. This applies to non-Christians as well as Christians. There's just an added pretense there when Christians fall victim to human nature, because they often claim that they're doing what God says to cover for their lack of wisdom or their sinful urges. At least within the context of the American Church (because it's the only one I really have any experience with), I trust most of my fellow Christians about as far as I can throw 'em. (Unless specific people prove to me that they are trustworthy and halfway intelligent.)

But I can't point out any of the above without admitting that I am a fallible human who considers himself a Christian, and therefore I am part of the Church's problem.

NP: "Rewind", The Violet Burning

[spacebrat311]

In the words of one of my favorite theology professors here:

"Taking the Bible literally? I don't even know if I'm literally standing on the ground."

[Vlad!]

Also, regarding future texts, there's the issue of what got chosen to be part of the canon and what didn't. At some point we came to accept a certain set of writings as "Scripture". I'm willing to accept those as God's Word. The reasons for choosing them make good sense to me. The reasons for not choosing some of the stuff that didn't get included also generally make sense to me. But those who chose some books while rejecting others needed a litmus other than what Paul said to figure that out.

I think that's the core of the infallibility belief: that even though the Bible was written by humans and the canon was chosen by humans, that we can trust God to reveal his will and his Word--the person of Christ Jesus--to us through such imperfect means.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while the Bible may reiterate the fact that it is the genuine Word of God, this alone isn't sufficient to prove that it is. You can't use your premise to prove your premise. It's stating something that I do believe to be truth, but my reason for believing it to be true is not just because it says so.

True; however, what would you consider to be sufficient proof? Should God send each of us a personalized postcard saying "by the way, dudes, that book I wrote is totally the real deal"? If there were such a thing as a book of absolute truth, how could it be verified, if you posit that every other work is necessarily less truthful than it itself? I understand that for a book to say "everything written here is true" is really just begging the question--which is probably why the Bible doesn't say that. However, when Peter says that the words of Paul should be regarded as Scripture and Paul says the words of Peter are trustworthy, and when we have a reasonable suspicion that the Gospel accounts were written by those who researched them and talked with those who were present (or were present themselves), I don't find that it strains my faith unduly to put my trust in that.

[murlough23]

I think that's the core of the infallibility belief: that even though the Bible was written by humans and the canon was chosen by humans, that we can trust God to reveal his will and his Word--the person of Christ Jesus--to us through such imperfect means.

I'm cool with that.

True; however, what would you consider to be sufficient proof?

I'm not sure. I'm not so much concerned with proving it as I am concerned with pointing out that the argument commonly cited as proof is really circular reasoning. I mean, it's not like I don't believe Scripture to be the Word of God. I understand that on some gut level. I don't need it proven to me. But I recognize that I've taken a bit of a leap of faith, and that I need to be teachable regarding exactly what that idea - that it is the Word of God - actually means. The things that convinced me, I don't expect to be 100% logically binding to someone else.

Should God send each of us a personalized postcard saying "by the way, dudes, that book I wrote is totally the real deal"? If there were such a thing as a book of absolute truth, how could it be verified, if you posit that every other work is necessarily less truthful than it itself?

I don't know. I think He likes to make us work for it a little. God has physically appeared to people before and they've still disbelieved. We can be stubborn that way. So even if He made it blatantly obvious, a lot of us still wouldn't get it.

I understand that for a book to say "everything written here is true" is really just begging the question--which is probably why the Bible doesn't say that. However, when Peter says that the words of Paul should be regarded as Scripture and Paul says the words of Peter are trustworthy, and when we have a reasonable suspicion that the Gospel accounts were written by those who researched them and talked with those who were present (or were present themselves), I don't find that it strains my faith unduly to put my trust in that.

Absolutely. There's some element of faith that has to be there in order to believe that. "Reasonable suspicion" is pretty convincing, but it isn't hardcore proof. I'm not trying to knock that belief down at all (though I am questioning the implications of the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, but I think you and I agree that this need not lead directly to inerrancy). I'm just saying it's not necessarily a belief that can be arrived at by pure logical reasoning, which is why I think it's silly to try to go that route by using Paul to corroborate himself.