Yes, some people expand the term inerrancy to allow for errors in the text (original manuscripts and copies), allowing for errors in minor facts.
That seems to be redefining the word inerrancy, and preaching or teaching “inerrancy” while still allowing for errors of fact in the texts sets people up for a faith that crumbles.
An example from Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary:
What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.
The problem with Ehrman was likely not that a professor denied inerrancy. The problem was that Ehrman’s faith’s foundation WAS inerrancy, a doctrine not found in scripture.
If God has inspired to the point of directing the words of the Bible (or any other book) and that book contains errors, then God is responsible for the errors. It’s simple logic.
Translations aren’t perfect.
That you regard the Bible Project (makers of some nice videos) as a scholarly source is kind of funny.
What’s wrong with the book of Jasher?
There are no examples of errors in the Bible or else you would have provided some as examples. That’s what people do when they want to prove their point.
Inerrancy is found in scripture. “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. 19:7.) The Lord Jesus said that scripture “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Dan Wallace believes in inerrancy.
I don’t. That is language people use when they seek to make God their own personal property and claim God’s inspiration only comes to them so they and they alone speak for God.
I believe that inspiration of God rains down upon us in a torrent to be found all around us, even (maybe especially) in the words of child.
I was talking about the Bible being the “word of God.”
I made no such claim.
What I said was that I do not believe that one cannot find any error in any part of the Bible. All you need to do is look at the text of the Bible under a microscope and you will find that all the apparently straight edges of the letters used in the printed text are anything but straight. I think all the errors people find in the Bible are of this nature… insignificant details that have to do with the material flaws in the tools which God used to write the Bible.
You are sounding more and more like one of these crazy people that claim God hand-wrote the King James Bible. Is that true?
By substituting what God said with their lies, what many so called Christians are doing is far worse than simply claiming that God lies.
Sooooo… you equate the idea that the relationship between God and man has changed over time, like from the Israelites making a golden calf, to the bizarre list of laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, to the teachings of Jesus and Paul, equating this to a claim that we have a better understanding of God than those of the first century AD. LOL
Well then I suppose I should likewise equate what you say to the most ridiculous example of Xtian racism, misogyny and bigotry that I can find. That is only IF I wanted to play this ridiculous game of yours. But I think this is condemned by the teachings of Paul and the Bible… so I am not going to play.
The relationship between God and man has not changed. People are still sinners and Christ is still the savior.
Since Jesus taught that the Bible was inspired and the Word of God, to be a “Christian” (a follower of Jesus) is to believe that too.
Well “ The Bible Project “ does a lot more than just make YouTube videos. In general biblical scholars and theologians hold Tim Mackie’s work as scholarly. Perhaps you’ve not been able to stay focused enough and for through a episode series of theirs on the podcast. It can get a bit deep and it’s not for everyone.
So you recognize that translations are not the same thing as the original writings. Could you link me to which original writings you are using. I would really appreciate it.
What do you mean what’s wrong with the book of Jasher? I asked why is the book of Jasher not in typical cannons despite being mentioned in the word.
When we read is parable it says that men are like seeds. Are we literally or metaphorically like seeds? If we are metaphorically like seeds, and not literally like seeds, does that mean the Bible is lying or does that mean it’s being interpreted wrong.
Agreed. We use Bible project videos in training Indigenous Bible translators. All of the content of the videos is based on good, current scholarship. Tim Mackie has a PhD in Hebrew and Jewish Studies and is a professor of biblical studies at Western Seminary. He is a scholar.
@JohnCarpenter it doesn’t seem like you respect the expertise of anyone but yourself, even though you admit you aren’t an expert in the many fields you feel inclined to educate the rest of us about. That’s a bad look. I for one do not care to learn anything from people who think they have nothing to learn and are just here to instruct the world in their own wisdom. A lack of intellectual humility is an instant disqualification in my book when I am deciding whether people are worth listening to or engaging with.
Matthew 15:5-6 (NIV2011)
5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’
6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
John 10:35-37 (NIV2011)
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
@JohnCarpenter, you said that Jesus called the Bible the Word of God, but my Bible says He used the term word of God. The only place where the Word (of God) is used in the NY is in John 1:1 for Jesus Himself. Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, while the Bible is not God, so how can they be the same?
Also Jesus said for us to believe that He is the Son of God, not because He said so, but only if He does the works of God. In other words the Bible is subject to evidence.
Roger, we’ve been through this so many times. There was no capitalization in the Greek text, making a distinction between word of God/Word of God is an English convention. Logos tou theou is used to refer to Jesus in Revelation 19:13 (never in John, where he is only referred to as logos) All other references to logos/logon tou theou in the NT refer to God’s message or revelation. The phrase word of God can be used in English to refer to God’s message or revelation, or the canonical Scriptures (a convention that has existed in Christian history since before English was a language). When capitalized as a proper name, Word of God can refer to Jesus or the Bible. That’s how English works. Stop correcting people on this issue.
It may refer to a specific passage that quotes God or that quotes a prophet speaking for God — but it never refers to scripture in general or the Bible in its entirety.
Parts of the Bible specifically claim to be the opinions of man, not God.