I was just curious about the opinions of some people on if the bible was inerrant or not. Personally, I think the bible could have errors and minor problems as it was written by humans trying to interpret a huge and non-physical God. Naturally, there should be some errors, right? Even with divine influence, there is not guarantee that it was used correctly.
3 Likes
Well ā¦ no matter what oneās stance is regarding the state of the inaccessible, pristinely written autographs ā¦ there is no denying this: Our receipt and understanding of whatever latest translation we have available is anything but infallible or inerrant or (we probably canāt even presume on āinspiredā!)
Which reduces the former question to [near] irrelevance; (especially insofar as, in many modern organizations, itās become little more than a contest for us to see who has built the shiniest and highest edifice to venerate their view of scripture over everyone elseās.) It is like getting in a dispute over whether or not the headwaters of your favorite river swimming hole came from the most completely pure and perfect H2O the world has ever seen! But after itās flowed by dozens of villages, been peed in, pooped in, swam in, polluted in, ā¦ by the time youāre enjoying them, it becomes almost irrelevant what you insist about those imagined headwaters way up there. We are imperfect radio receivers living in a world full of noise. So no matter how perfect some transmitter is, whatever we take away from it on our end is simply going to have error in it, and we are left with the task (not of discarding the precious signal then), but of handling it well, and doing the necessary work (and prayer) of hearing the message thatās there for us, even with all the noise and baggage we bring to our encounter with it. So we do at least want to be sure weāre actually swimming in the (presumably still life-giving) river, and not in the sewer spewing from a local factory.
[And I suppose we could think of translators and scholars as being like river conservationists who are working under the Spiritās guidance to keep or restore the river waters so that more villages continue to have access to the good water. A worthy and necessary labor. But if itās important to us to think the original autographs were āinerrantā, then youāre also having faith that all the canon councils and translation work over the ages was also under the Spiritās direction too. Yet even then, are you going to insist that such a cloak of infallibility also extends finally to you, the reader then too? And to what modern thinkers have taught you must get packed into such a favorite shibboleth as: āinerrantā? At this point, hopefully you can see why so many donāt find this whole project all that fruitful any more.]
1 Like
I remember reading how one scholar said he had no problem with saying the Bible was inerrant, so long as he could define it. Inerrant means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. With that in mind, perhaps it is no longer a very useful word to describe Godās revelation to us through written words. I feel God is faithful to transmit those things he wishes to reveal to us through the the Bible in a way that can be understood by us, but that message is ultimately interpreted through the lens of Jesus by the help of the Holy Spirit. That leaves ambiguity and areas of conflict, however, which is uncomfortable.
How would you, @pjetercatsplat define inerrancy? By the way, welcome to the forum, as I see you are a relative newcomer. It is good to have you here and hear your voice.
5 Likes
The scriptures inerrantly strike the targets that God intends them to.
2 Likes
So you agree with me?
Thatās an interesting point. Are you saying that perhaps it is not inerrant as in perfect, but rather hits everything intended?
Yeah I agree with that, It canāt be perfectly interpreted universally as no human shares a universal mind and experience.
I think I would define inerrant as the message and interpretation are fully and wholly exactly as how God intended it to be and worded how God wanted it to be worded. I would exclude trivial errors like grammar and language as obviously those things fluctuate over time.
Thanks!
1 Like
Yes. I canāt find any claim of factual inerrancy in the entire Bible, but there are several verses that say His Word does what it was sent to do, under both Testaments.
Well, I especially agree with your last statement, anyway.
If people are willing to nuance it - and limit their ascription of infallibility to what is actually being taught, then ā¦ Iām still okay calling it inerrant. (When Iāve been obliged to join in with that game, I have.)
1 Like
No, not in the Chicago Statement sense. Here is one interesting issue for the inerrancy folks. The New Testament quotes passages from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew Scriptures). Some of the quotes included are from document sources other than the ones that make up the curent, most reliable MT, and textual critics have now evaluated them to contain known scribal copying errors or mistranslations. But since they are incorporated into the New Testament, does that magically make the obviously erroneous Septuagint passages āinerrant.ā? No, thatās silly.
5 Likes
Inerrancy is primarily an American construct, invented in a specific time to fight specific battles. It outlived its usefulness with the advent of the postmodern focus on perspectivalism, constructed knowledge, and reading the Scriptures in community. Itās based on a model of language and communication (code model) that has been discarded by cognitive scientists in favor of a new one (inference model) that does not support ideas like āverbal plenary inspiration.ā (Because it turns out words are not little meaning containers after all.)
The global church is content with words like āauthoritative,ā āinspired,ā and āinfallible.ā These words communicate the historical doctrine that the canon represents Godās special revelation, the composers, compilers, redacters, and preservers of the text were moved by Godās spirit in some way to record and maintain the Scriptures, and Godās word faithfully does what God intends it to do through the work of his Spirit in the church.
I am personally much more content with these words in a doctrine of Scripture than āinerrancy,ā because inerrancy is a demonstrably flawed construct that results in people wasting time in these Star Trek convention-esque conversations ādefendingā and ādealing withā esoteric details in passages instead of contextualizing the meaning and getting on with the business of living Christ-like lives for the blessing of the world.
12 Likes
Infallible is a stronger term than inerrant. Infallible says the Bible cannot err, and inerrant means that it is without errors.
Ok, that makes sense.
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
I think I would agree with that.
I just looked up āinfallibleā in the dictionary and one definition is āalways effectiveā as in an āinfallible cureā. So, infallible could have a broader meaning as āthe bible always accomplishes what it was meant to doā, a meaning unrelated to the factual correctness of every word or number (which seems to be what the word āinerrantā is trying to capture).
5 Likes
Not how Iāve seen it used. In most global Evangelical contexts it means Godās word doesnāt fail to do what God intends it to do. And clearly, thatās an ideal and a faith claim made in hope, not a description of observed reality, because people use Godās word abusively and not as God probably intended all the time. When people assume their interpretations are infallible, thatās a whole other issue.
7 Likes
The Chicago Statement accounts for alot of this. I canāt remember if I read the whole thing, but I am aware it at least accounts for hyperbole.
I donāt think anyone in the conversation believes Godās word is fallible (maybe some open theists 
) the question is really what is the relationship between Godās word and the Bible. I have no problem with a wide range of understanding on this, and once any semblance of political authority is taken from the Church I am optimistic (perhaps naively) the Church via the Spirit, will find a better way.
1 Like
Interestingly, it would be just as meaningful to say the Bible is inerrant with regard to doctrines touching on faith and morals
1 Like