The Meaning of Bible Inerrancy
(A Concise Definition of the Doctrine)
We hear lots of arguments on whether or not the Bible is “inerrant”,
but how often do we think about what is meant by declaring the Bible
inerrant. A proper definition of the term may not solve all our
disputes, but it will certainly reduce their number, and give us a
better understanding of exactly what we’re arguing for or against.
If we ask a person the meaning of Biblical inerrancy, the most common
response will be that the Bible is “without error”. This begs the
questions “what constitutes an error?” and what about all the false
statements contained in the Bible?” (Please hold the stones – we’ll
explain this below). So, we see that formulating a simple compact
definition of Biblical inerrancy is not as straightforward as it might
at first appear. Almost any definition will still require some
qualifications. Therefore, in this article, we’ll attempt to develop a
clear concise meaning and understanding of this important doctrine.
|
|
In formulating our definition, we can start with the
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
which defines the word inerrant as “incapable of erring;
infallible”, or as “containing no errors”. The first
portion is technically correct, but inadequate in describing
Biblical Inerrancy since it doesn’t adequately elaborate on
the term “erring”. We should also note that some
apologists maintain minor technical differences between the
terms “infallible” and “inerrant”, while others see them as
virtually synonymous (we’ll use the terms interchangeably).
The second portion “containing no errors” also requires
further clarification. Any scholar will readily admit
that the Bible contains many false statements, but this does
not make it inerrant (no I didn’t used to give legal council
to Bill Clinton – I’m not even a lawyer). The doctrine
of inerrancy does not maintain that the Bible contains no
false or inaccurate statements, but that the Bible does not
affirm any false or inaccurate statements. For
example, the first falsehood in the Bible is contained in
Genesis, when Satan says to Eve, “Surely, you will not
die” (Gen 3:4). This passage carries only
descriptive and historical authority rather than normative
authority (establishing a principle or standard). That
is, the Bible affirms only that it contains an accurate
description of the statement that was made, but does not
affirm that the statement itself is accurate or true, nor
does it pass judgment on the statement. We then see
many false statements made by the fallible human characters
throughout the Bible such as Job’s friends, the teacher in
Ecclesiastes, various false prophets, and many others.
Many were rebuked, such as Peter (Mt 16:23), but no false
statement is ever affirmed as being true. The fallible
opinions of the human authors (distinguished from the
authoritive Word) and quotes from uninspired sources also
fall under this category.
So, at this point, we can amend our definition to say
that the inerrant Scriptures “contain no falsehoods which
are affirmed as truth”, or that they are “incapable of
affirming an error or falsehood as truth”. By adding
another facet to the doctrine of inerrancy, the aspect that
the doctrine applies only to the original authographa, we
can quote a definition from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic
Theology, in which he writes “The inerrancy of
Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts
does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” This
is one of the best and most concise statements that I’ve
heard, but it begs the question of what constitutes a “fact”
as opposed to an “error”. Theologian Paul Feinberg
defines inerrancy as “when all facts are known, the
Scriptures in their original autographs and properly
interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything
that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or
morality or with social, physical, or life sciences”.
This description adds some addition criteria, but we need to
further identify what we mean by “wholly true”, so even this
more comprehensive definition requires some qualifications.
We’ll discuss these in the following section.
[TOC]
[Top of Page]
|
|
In the above definitions, we’ve already encountered what
could be considered qualifications, such as inerrancy being
limited to the original autographs and to proper
interpretations. In reality, we could argue that
proper interpretation is not required for a Scripture to be
inerrant. In the case where a Biblical passage is
misinterpreted, only the faulty interpretation would be in
error while the Scripture itself would remain inerrant.
For practical purposes however, we must properly interpret
the Scripture in order for us to evaluate it.
Therefore, many apologists link inerrancy with hermeneutics,
the science (or rules) of proper Biblical interpretation.
Now let’s examine a few more qualifications to the doctrine.
The doctrine of inerrancy does not prohibit the use of
ordinary language. The doctrine allows for the use
of slang, figures of speech such as hyperbole, various
genres, figurative language, observational description of
nature, and spelling or grammatical irregularities (truth is
judged by the accuracy of the author’s intent, not the
structure of the sentence). The author’s are allowed
the same normal usage of the language for their time and
culture, just as we do today. Perhaps the best known
example is when we say “The sun will set this evening then
rise again tomorrow morning”. Astronomically speaking,
this is an erroneous statement, since we know the movement
actually comes from the Earth’s rotation, but is not
considered an error in the normal use of our geocentric
language.
The doctrine of inerrancy does not necessitate the degree
of technical precision that we sometimes require in our
modern language. This applies to several different
classes of statements, including numbers, scientific
language and quotations. During Bible times, it was
common to round off numbers (quantities, distances, elements
of time etc) depending on the situation and author’s intent.
For example, when we read of Jesus feeding 5000 people, the
actual number might have been 5029. Likewise, when
Abraham was promised his descendents to be numbered like the
grains of sands on a sea shore, the exact number might not
match the exact number of grains on a particular shore.
Neither statement would be considered inerrant.
Looking at the author’s intent, the first case is
approximated, and the second case means “too many to count”.
Even today, the required precision of numbers varies by the
situation. Suppose a person earned $51,647 a year and
they were asked the amount of their annual salary.
Would it be inaccurate for this person to respond that it
was $50,000? This would be perfectly acceptable if the
person was responding to a survey, but quite unacceptable
during an IRS audit.
The Bible is not primarily a book of history or science, but
when it speaks historically or scientifically, it does so
inerrantly. This does not require precise technical
language, but can do so with the normal use of ordinary
language. We’ve already given the example of the sun
rising and setting. In another common case, critics
use the Biblical statement about “the four corners (or ends)
of the earth” to accuse the author of asserting that the
Earth is flat, but the author simply means “to all the
earth”. Incidentally, the Bible alludes to the earth
being round in Isaiah 40:22 (Hebrew word translated circle
can also mean sphere), Job 26:7 (Earth suspended in space in
comparison with the sun and moon), and in Luke 17:31-24
(Jesus alludes to the Earth’s rotation) during the time that
scientist believed the Earth to be flat. It would be a
minimum of 1500 years before scientists determined that the
Earth was indeed round.
New Testament (NT) writers often quoted the Old Testament
(OT) prophets by re-stating the prophets’ thoughts and
intentions in the NT author’s own words. The NT
authors did the same with many quotes from the teachings of
Jesus. While this practice often produces lawsuits in
our modern culture, it was the accepted norm in Biblical
times (It was also considered a complement rather than
copyright infringement to quote another person). In NT
culture, primary importance was placed on the content,
thought and intent of the speaker or author, not on his
exact words (the Greek language of the Septuagint and the NT
had no quotation marks, and translation from Hebrew was
involved). We must also remember that the NT authors
quoted their sources under the divine inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, an important contrast with critics and scholars
today. So, as long as the integrity of the original
content is maintained, the quotation remains inerrant.
The doctrine of inerrancy does not guarantee an
exhaustive comprehensive account of an event. While
God has revealed all we need to know, he doesn’t always
reveal all we’d like to know. Similarly, the doctrine
also takes into consideration that God’s revelation is
progressive throughout Scripture. For example, the
“mystery” of salvation was foreshadowed in the temple
worship and sacrifices in the OT, then fully revealed in the
NT. This does not mean that revelation was incomplete
or inaccurate in the OT. It was organic in that it
contained all the OT writers needed to know at the time,
even if they did not always understand the full implications
of their own words.
Since critics tend to declare an inaccuracy over the least
little detail, we should mention that arranging material
topically is perfectly acceptable in the Scriptures (there
have been critics cry “error” because some events were not
presented in chronological order).
[TOC]
[Top of Page]
|
|
Considering all the above, let’s make one more attempt at a
compact description of the doctrine. We can now define the
doctrine of inerrancy as:
The Scriptures in their original autographs, when
properly interpreted, will be wholly true and accurate in
every respect, to the degree of precision intended by the
author, about all they affirm, whether relating to doctrine,
ethics, morality, society, history or science.
In conclusion, if we keep this definition in mind, along
with the other points we attempted to make, most perceived
Biblical “errors” will disappear, and we’ll be better
equipped to approach other Scriptural difficulties in a more
informed manner.
[TOC]
[Top of Page]
|