Yesterday, I asked why we need the doctrine of inerrancy. I also asked that even if we had a text today which was  100% accurate to what was originally written, would this be of any help to us at all?

I say no. It wouldn’t.

Why not?

Because the primary issue when it comes to the Bible is not so much what was written, but rather, what it means. And even if we knew for certain what was written, this still would not help us understand what it means.

The Bible is 99.9% Accurate. So what?

Look at it this way: Scholars like to say that although errors crept in to the manuscripts through the copying process, most of the manuscripts we have today are in 99.9% agreement with each other, and therefore, are mostly in 99.9% agreement with what was originally written. Furthermore, these same scholars go on to tell us that the 0.1% of discrepancies do not effect any major teaching or doctrine of the church.

Fine. So this means that all Christians, and all churches, and all theologians are in 99.9% agreement with each other on the major teachings and doctrines of the church?

[Read more…]

Now that I have summarized what I was taught in Bible College and Seminary about the inerrancy of Scripture (Inerrancy 1, Inerrancy 2, Inerrancy 3, Inerrancy 4), let me turn to asking the questions about inerrancy that I had neither the time nor the courage to ask while I was in seminary.

Let’s with this statement:

The Bible is not inerrant. It does contain errors.

Before you call me a heretic, let me say that I pulled that statement right out of my Bible College class notes. And I didn’t go to some liberal college either. Moody Bible Institute is about as conservative as you can get. The year I started there, they finally decided to let females wear pants to class.

Is the Bible Inerrant?

So what did my Professor mean when he said that? He meant, as is universally known and accepted, that the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible are copies of ancient manuscripts, and these copies have textual errors which have crept in over the course of time. Not all the copies are in full agreement with each other. Therefore, the Bible has errors.

[Read more…]

My seminary class notes present refutations for several of the common arguments against inerrancy. I remember not being too impressed by these refutations at the time, but now, some of them seem quite absurd.

Do not misunderstand. I believe in inerrancy. But I believe a slightly different version of it than what I learned in seminary. We will discuss my view later this week. (If you are new here, make sure you subscribe to the posts so you don’t miss out).

So here are some of the typical arguments against inerrancy, and how to refute them. I include my own comments in parentheses.

Cults Teach the Inerrancy of Scripture

The argument here is that inerrancy cannot be right because some of the biggest proponents of inerrancy are found in the teachings of cult leaders. They use the doctrine of inerrancy to support their outlandish teachings from the Bible. Therefore, inerrancy must be wrong.

Refutation: So what if they teach it? They teach all sorts of things that agree with sound Christian doctrine. So do other religions. Similarity in teachings does not mean that the teaching is wrong.

[Read more…]

As with this entire series on Blogging through my Seminary notes, I begin by summarizing what I was taught in seminary. Here is what I was taught about the Inerrancy of Scripture.

What the Inerrancy of Scripture Means

The most basic understanding of the Inerrancy of Scripture is that Scripture has “no error” or is “without error.”

This means that the Bible is a record of things as they actually were, and a true account of those things about which it speaks.

A more detailed definition is as follows:

Inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible teaches no error of any kind, whether doctrinal, ethical, historical, or scientific. All of the teachings are in perfect harmony with reality.

[Read more…]

I was listening to Talk Radio the other day, and an advertisement came on by Rush Limbaugh in which he said he is always right. He said something like this: “I, Rush Limbaugh, the all-seeing one, the all-knowing, the omnipotent, the omnipresent, the omnivorous…”

I just had to laugh, because the “all-knowing” one just claimed to be “all-eating.” Omnivorous means that he eats everything. Carnivores eat meat. Herbivores eat plants. Omnivores eat both.

I really doubt this is what he meant to say. It sounds like he was trying to come with “Omni-” words, and without really knowing what they all mean, just spouted out a few. This mistake is understandable, since those are some “big words” but what really surprised me was this excerpt made it into a radio ad spot. Does everyone just assume Rush is always right, and so whatever he says must be accurate?

It seems so.

It also seems that we should not be hasty in blindly trusting the words of men.

Can We Trust the Bible?

But what about when it comes to the Bible? Cannot we simply assume that since the Bible is “God’s Holy Word” that it is completely accurate in everything written within it’s pages?

[Read more…]

I am going to end the series on Inspiration (for now), and move on to the issues of canonicity, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. If that sounds boring, don’t worry, I’ll spice it up for you.

I want to thank you for all the great comments and feedback you provided on inspiration. If you missed the comments of others, here are some of the best. They were so good, I wonder if they are “inspired”? Just kidding!

Throughout the entire series, Dylan Dodson, from Looking for Purpose, asked great questions. At one point, he stated that he is writing from a position of practical concern, which is where all questions of theology should come from:

Lastly, inspiration of scripture hits very close to home for me. I am currently a college student getting a degree in philosophy and religion, and am in a department full of atheists and agnostics (professors included). I have seen all of the “secular” beliefs of how the bible came to be written and canonized, and can attest to the dangers and how simply un-authoritative the bible becomes if it is in fact not inspired by God. I know that if I did not bible that the bible was both infallible and inerrant, I would not believe in it.

[Read more…]

Many are confused about how to approach Scripture. Should we approach it like a novel or history book to be read and enjoyed? Or should we approach it like a text book to be studied and analyzed? The answer is: Yes.

It is helpful if we remember that both the Bible and nature are forms of divine revelation, and based on this, realize that we can approach Scripture in the same way we approach nature.

How does one approach nature?

You can approach it as a scientist, seeking to categorize, systematize, and organize it, or you can approach it like a person who sits in their backyard, listening to the birds and watching the sunset. He also is encountering, appreciating, and enjoying nature, but in a much different way, for a much different purpose, with a much different result.

And the two approaches must not mock each other.

The scientist must not sneer at the guy sitting in his back yard enjoying the sunset, saying, “He doesn’t know anything about nature. I have my degrees, and advanced research tools. I am a research professor at a prestigious university. I have published books and articles. That man knows nothing of nature.”

[Read more…]