Inerrancy

Preface: This paper was written by myself, Austin Way, and Melissa Neago. It contains within it several issues pertaining to inerrancy and hopes to bring some clarification to this difficult issue.  

Biblical Inerrancy

What is Biblical Inerrancy?

            Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the bible is fully trustworthy and a guide that will not deceive us. Several confessions have statements that deal with biblical inerrancy, The 1647 Westminster Confession talks of the bible’s “infallible truth,” The 1561 Belgic Confession calls the bible an “Infallible” rule, and in 1380 Wyclif dubbed it the “infallible rule of truth.” These point toward a deep understanding and belief by the church fathers that the bible is inerrant. While the word inerrant did not appear until the 19-century the belief has been around since the founding of the church (Ferguson, Wright, Packer, 337). 

            The term inerrancy came about during the 19-century when enlightenment skepticism called into question the trustworthiness of the bible. New ideas were formed to create a new theology and interpretive approaches were created in an effort to take God’s authority out of the text. Those in the reformation used this term to describe their belief that all text in the bible was true and correct (Ferguson, Wright, Packer, 337).      

            The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is foundational for understanding the bible and trusting it as God’s word. If the book that is written by God has error in it how then can we trust such a book when it talks of things like Christ’s death and resurrection. The doctrine of inerrancy becomes very important when we deal with these types of questions.

The definition of inerrancy that we are going to use is: “The bible always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about” (Grudeum 67). This is a simplified definition of what inerrancy is. This definition basically means that when the bible teaches something or discusses an event it has accurately recorded that even or teaching by that person. This definition puts more of an emphasis on the meaning of the passages being inerrant. By holding that the meaning of passages are inerrant you are able to side step the issue of grammatical errors in the bible.  

The Term Inerrancy

            While the term inerrancy is not ideal as it leads people to think of the bibl in ways that it was not meant to be there is no better term in the english langue to describe this idea succinctly. The term lends itself toward being hijacked to force the bible into being a textbook for history and scientific knowledge. When that is not what the bible is. The bible is a book that leads us in spiritual matters and comments on occasion on the spiritual impact that certain historical and scientific events have. Yet with out holding to some sort of inerrancy doctrine you leave your whole faith open to questions. While the term is not the best it is a necessary doctrine when it comes to defending the bible as God’s word. If the bible is not inerrant we would be able to pick and chose what we want to believe. 

            Infallibility vs. Inerrancy

            Some theologians have stopped using the term inerrancy and have started to use the term Infallibility. Up until recently these two terms have been synonymous now infallibility tends to mean that the bible is true and correct in all matters of faith and salvation that it teaches.

            The issue with infallibility is that it is difficult to describe what is a matter of faith and what is a matter of salvation. If you don’t like something you can just say that it does not pertain to faith or salvation and therefore must be an error in the text. This has devastating consequences when played out and needs to be taken seriously when considering the outworking of this view.

Types of Inerrancy

There are four majors views held about biblical inerrancy. They are absolute, full, limited and no inerrancy (Erickson, 60). Each view has been critiqued over the years, and each pose different problems and difficulties.

Absolute inerrancy believes the Bible and everything in it is true.  This even includes statements of science. So much so that the authors of the Bible had science in mind when they wrote scripture and made a detail account for scientific occurrences (Erickson, 60). For example, people who hold this view believe a literal six day creation of the universe and the earth. Also they only accept that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch. Absolute inerrantist would believe the first couple chapters of genesis are both Hebrew poetry and more importantly an accurate and scientific account of the beginning of the universe. Many fundamentalist hold this view.

Those who criticize this position tend to point out discrepancies like the circumference of the molten sea in second chronicle is incorrect (Ryrie, 112). As well as the account in Joshua that tells of the sun standing in place rather than the earth stopping its rotation around the sun. The skeptics to this absolute inerrancy conclude that there are scientific errors in the bible thus making the bible an error filled document and not inerrant or the doctrine of inerrancy is not important.

Both conservative and liberal groups find that this type is of biblical inerrancy too encompassing and broad. Liberal Christians throw out this view completely and even conservative Christians disagree with absolute inerrancy because they believe the bible is not a scientific text book. This is why many Roman Catholics, Protestant, Evangelical Christians hold to a slightly modified view called full inerrancy.   

Full inerrancy believes that everything that the bible teaches is true. There is no difference between absolute and full inerrancy in terms of religious and theological matters. However the major difference between absolute and full inerrancy is the role of the Bible concerning the subject of science. Full inerrantists believe the Bible foremost purpose is not to teach science, consequently is not a science text book (Erickson, 60). People who hold this view demand that Bible should be read with it intended purpose in mind and read according to its various genres. For example if a passage of scripture is parabolic do not try to read it as a essay or a detailed exposition about the ontological nature of the universe.  Full inerrancy also allows for phenomenological language, the language of appearance. For example the sun rises and the sun sets. The sun in reality does not move around the earth but the earth moves around the sun. However the sun appears to move around the earth. The expression is not trying to make a technical scientific statement but rather explain the way the world looks like. Full inerrancy allows for figures of speech like metaphors, personification, and hyperbole just to name a few.

Critics of this position try to attack seemingly apparent contradictions. For example who caused King David to census the fighting men of Israel? One account says that God did and the other say Satan moved David to give a census. It seems that second Samuel and first chronicles contradict itself (Ryrie 110). However, this problem has a solution. Did God cause Job’s suffering or was it Satan? It was both. In the same way the census was caused by both God and Satan.  Many who feel uncomfortable with the seemingly apparent contradictions tend to go in one of two camps. The first is limited inerrancy and the second is no inerrancy at all.      

Limited inerrantists believe that inerrancy and infallibility are only true about the salvific message and matters of faith. History and science only reflect the writers’ culture and current understanding the way the universe worked. The Biblical authors were limited by in the era they lived in. Also God did not reveal science or precise history to the writers. Nor did God improve the skills of the Biblical writers (Erickson, 60). Thus, the authors’ writing shows their limitations as human writers. Men like Karl Barth and some of the faculty of Fuller theological seminary hold this view.

Critics of this view raise some important questions. First, what parts of the Bible are only concerned with the salvific message? Secondly, who decides the inerrant and infallible sections of the bible? Many feel limited inerrancy leads people down a slippery slope.  This could lead people to allegorize many literal portions of the Bible and flat out reject many passages of the Bible removing passages from both the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures.

The last view of Inerrancy is not a view in itself just the denial of the infallibility, inspiration, and, inerrancy of the Bible. People who hold this view only accept the Bible as any other ancient literary work, like the deluge of Gilgamesh or Homer’s odyssey. It is only a human book and God did not inspire the text. Thus there are many mistakes and error all throughout the
Bible. Furthermore miracles and supernatural occurrences are only there to try to mythologize the events in the Bible. The same logic applies to Jesus Christ. The biblical account of the god-like qualities Jesus, performing of miracles and his birth, was a first century attempt to glorify an ordinary man. They seek to find the historical Jesus. All orthodox Christians reject this view. They point out the non-inerrantist presume Bible has a motive that is untruthful, and full errors from the beginning. Nor do they give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.        

After carefully considering the different options and view on biblical inerrancy we decided we are full inerrantists. The seemingly apparent contradictions in scripture, if read carefully, can be reconciled. Having in the mind the genre and purpose help navigate these problem passages. We believe that bible wasn’t writing for scientific reasons. Nor do we demand historical or scientific accuracy from texts that aren’t scientific and historical in nature.  This separates us from the absolute inerrantists. We disagree with limited inerrancy because it creates problems concerning authority and slippery slopes. We deny non-inerrancy for the reason it reduce the Bible just mere a book that contradicts itself and lies about itself.

Inerrancy and Translation

            The issue concerning evangelicals’ discussion of inerrancy has shifted focus in recent years from the authenticity/inerrancy of the autographs, to if translation affects the position of inerrancy, provided the autographs were inspired and inerrant. In pondering this project’s question, I realized that the bible students’ question lies in the translation process and the inspiration and inerrancy of translations from the original languages. I was faced with the question: ‘what is inerrancy?’, and if I have a translation, is it still inerrant? So I had to distinguish the difference between inerrancy in form and inerrancy in meaning—it was in this question that I dove into my research of semantics, translation, and inerrancy.

Before I dive into matters of translation, however, I want to clarify a few points about language and the nature of inerrancy.            In the original writing of the Bible, the human authors wrote as they could: if they were elegant, skilled writers they conveyed the inspired meaning that way; if they used common language in their way of writing, they did. Therefore, inerrancy does not demand a strict adherence to rules of grammar: if the human authors wrote poor grammar, it’s just poor grammar, not grounds for errancy as we define it. Next, inerrancy does not exclude the use of figure of speech or of a given literary genre. Poetry is used in the Bible, as are figures of speech. “The sun rises” is an example of this, and is a true statement because it is how we would say it. That is why inerrancy also does not demand the technical language of modern science: the primary purpose of the Bible was not to explain geocentricity; rather, a figurative term is used to say “dawn.”

            Concerning translation and inerrancy, my question had to do with form and meaning. With the loss of the original word-for-word text, I had to question if the meaning was changed in the rendering of the message from one language to the other. In translation, the fact is that words do not necessarily “match” meanings from language to language: changing the form of wording can change the meaning, or not changing the form can change the meaning of a sentence, because of social and cultural differences, or simply because of grammatically differences. The translator must consider how far to go in changing form and providing information not explicit in the text in order for better understanding. There are a number of ways to say something true using a variety of ways to say it, and in an ever-changing language, these new ways keep translating a continued practice. Because some words are ambiguous or do not match, sometimes interpretational decisions remain in the translation process on some uncertain words or difficult passages. (Bradley 6)

            If words are substituted for each other, and some people believe they are not true to the meaning in the original language texts, then how can our translated Bible be inerrant or correct if such problems exist? The question then is where the meaning lies: does it lie solely in the “right” words, or does the same meaning exist in different varieties of words? Clearly, different forms can be used. 

While the original wording is important and helpful for our personal study, the same meaning can and is conveyed through acceptable translations, those being ones that faithfully portray the originals in meaning. So who decides what an acceptable translation is? I believe the question is about whether those stay true in content. There will be debates about which word is better to use in some translation areas, but that is why we have the differing translations. A study of the different translations will aid us individually as we study the Bible and seek to further understand its message and meaning. To clarify, the unacceptable, errant texts are those that change the meaning (not keeping the same in different kinds of words.) For example, the New World Translation is not an inerrant text because its authors willfully changed words and meaning to fit into a different theological paradigm that is the Jehovah’s Witness faith.

            In conclusion, our English bibles are faithful to the originals if they stay true in content, faithful to the original text. While different wording forms exist among the translations, the meaning is preserved, and our study of translations will aid us in further studying the Bible. Our own Bible is the inspired Word of God, as its meaning has been faithfully translated; its content true; it is simply different in form.

Works Cited

Bradley, Virginia M. 1988. The Extent of Interpretation Required in Translating the Scriptures.            Portland, Or.: Multnomah Graduate School of Ministry. Print.

Erickson, Millard J., and L. Arnold. Hustad. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1992. Print.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995. Print.

“Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Bible.” New Dictionary of Theolog. 1^st ed. 1988. Print.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology. Wheaton, IL.: Victor, 1986. Print.