The other day, as I was driving to work in my old, red Jeep (going over 60 mph), I noticed the sun rising on the horizon, and I remembered God and thanked Him for everything He has given me in this life—especially after having heard the pastor on the radio telling me to do so.
Now, I assure you that what I’ve just told you is the truth; but to some people, that might not be precise enough. Here’s what I mean:
- Technically, I was driving my old, red Jeep Liberty, but the precise color is burgundy red, and the Jeep is only 14 years old.
- Also, I was not going just over 60 mph, I was going 64.5 mph.
- Moreover, the sun doesn’t "rise over the horizon," it stays in place; instead, the earth moves and it only seems as if the sun moves.
- Also, I could not possibly have thanked God for every single little thing He’s given me; for I’d still be praying even now.
- Lastly, to be specific, the pastor I was listening to on the radio was Greg Laurie, and he actually said "take time today to thank God and be grateful for what He’s done for you."
Is this kind of precision, however, always needed in order to assert that something is true? These two examples illustrate how there is room within truth to include approximations, figures of speech, free quotations, and even unusual or uncommon grammatical and syntactical constructions in the Bible. These statements are still inerrant; that is, they are fully true. Let's take a look at the doctrine of Inerrancy.
We can now start talking about the doctrine of Inerrancy. This is a crucial doctrine that, if denied, could lead to some serious ramifications. Here are just a few reasons why this doctrine is important to us today: When theologians assert that the Bible is inerrant, they mean—essentially—that the Bible is fully true in all that it asserts or affirms. Notice that this definition is not as rigid and strict as "the Bible is absolutely perfect in its current state and records all and only truths." Our definition leaves room for common linguistic and grammatical deviations, approximations, figures of speech, and even the recording of false statements made by people in the Bible. Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted rather than what is merely reported. For example, as I mentioned above, the Bible records false or incorrect statements by various people. The fact that these statements are in the Bible does not automatically make them true or free from error, but we can rest assured that the statements are truthfully and wholly reported for us. For example: So, while we can say that every statement and event recorded in the Bible actually happened, not everything recorded in the Bible is a true statement in an of itself. But let me add something else: Whatever the Bible says is true, is true; and whatever the Bible says is false, is false. Millard Erickson states that "our doctrine of inerrancy maintains merely that whatever statements the Bible affirms are fully truthful when they are correctly interpreted in terms of their meaning in their cultural setting and the purpose for which they were written." The dictionary defines inerrant as "the lack of error; to be without error." But the theological definition and doctrine of Inerrancy states that: Scripture, in the original manuscripts, does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact; in other words, the Bible is fully true in all that it asserts or affirms. Notice that this asserts that only the original manuscripts (called the autographs) of the Bible are inerrant, not its copies. But we’ll get to that issue later. Let’s also define a few other terms. Remember that inspired means "God-breathed," and if something is God-breathed, it must be infallible, another term to know. Infallibility is sometimes conflated with inerrancy; the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, although a distinction should be made. Something is said to be infallible if it is not fallible (not liable to be erroneous or false); but in theological terms, infallibility also denotes something/one that is absolutely trustworthy or sure and therefore has divine authority. The Bible is infallible, first and foremost, and out this infallibility flows its inerrancy...not the other way around. Consider this, something can be inerrant, but not infallible, theologically speaking. A phone book or index can be perfectly written and edited so as not to have any errors in it (inerrant), but that does not make it infallible, i.e., divinely authoritative. Yet what is infallible must also be inerrant, for something that is fully trustworthy and divinely authoritative must also be free from error. And this is what the Bible is. Another term to think about is error. What is error? According to the dictionary, it is a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech. We can stick with this definition for now. The first question we should have asked ourselves today is: “Does the Bible teach that it is inerrant?” Naturally, one might be quick to notice that the Bible never uses the word “inerrant.” But the Bible also never mentions the words Trinity, Incarnation, the Rapture, Monotheism, and many others. Therefore, the mere absence of the theological term in the Bible does not mean that the doctrine or teaching is not found in Scripture. So, is the doctrine explicitly and clearly taught in Scripture? The short answer…no. But this depends on our definition of "explicit" or "clear." If by clear, we mean to ask if the Bible has proof texts that bluntly say, verbatim, "the Bible is inerrant," much like people want Jesus to have said "I am Yahweh," then, no, there are no such verses. But this is too narrow of a criterion for establishing an otherwise obviously clear doctrine taught in Scripture. So how did early Christians arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant? They arrived at it through careful reading and interpretation, and through logic. Below is the logical argument for the inerrancy of Scripture: But beyond logic, here are some verses to ponder upon regarding the inerrancy of the Bible. In other words, these verses within the Bible itself imply that the Scriptures are inerrant: If you’ll remember, back when we were defining the doctrine of Inerrancy, I stated that Inerrancy is claimed for the very first, original manuscripts (called the autographs) of the Bible, not the copies. Also, only the first, original autographs were inspired—yet none of them are in existence. Does this present us with a serious problem, then? I believe that it doesn’t. You see, while it is true that we do not possess the original manuscripts, it is not true that we do not possess the original text. That might seem kind of illogical, for the original text was written on the original manuscripts, but follow me here. We possess the original text in well-preserved copies of the originals. In fact, with the over 10,000 Old Testament manuscripts, and 25,000 New Testament manuscripts (5,800 of which are in Greek), and 50,000 fragments in existence, we have all or nearly all of the original text, and textual critics and scholars have been able to reconstruct the original text with over 99% accuracy. Theologian Wayne Grudem states that "for most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99% of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals." Moreover, the kinds of errors (called variants) present in these copies can, for the most part, be found, reconciled, and corrected or removed (as the evidence dictates). Textual critics have spent their lives analyzing and perfecting the current apparatus (the critical text of the Bible as compiled by Biblical and linguistic scholars, the most prominent ones being: The Dead Sea Scrolls, The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece). Now, just because we believe we have 99% of the original text today, that doesn’t mean that we do not have 100% of the truth. In other words, there is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. For example, consider this indicative statements: Y#U HAV3 WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS! (Over 7% in error) YOU WER NOT DRIVIN TEH LIMIT SPEED (Over 13% in error) Although there are misspellings, odd characters, missing letters, and improper word order, you were all able to interpret 100% of those statements, and not only that, you were able to receive or accept the truths of those statements (if they were, of course, actually true). That is what textual critics have done in developing the manuscripts from which most of our Bibles are translated. One thing to also keep in mind is that God will preserve His Word: "The words of the Lord are pure words,The Importance Of Affirming The Bible's Inerrancy
What is Inerrancy?
Other Definitions
Is Inerrancy Taught In The Bible
Implication: something that is pure must be without blemish, imperfections, or errors.
Implication: something that lasts forever must be perfect.
Implication: in order for every single Word of God to prove true, it must be perfect; the Bible is the Word of God, therefore it must also be perfect.
Implication: again, in order for something to last forever, it must be perfect.
Implication: God’s Words are the very essence of truth, not falsity.Bible Translations And Inerrancy
The Truth Is Clear
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.
You, O Lord, will keep them;
You will guard us from this generation forever." – Psalm 12:6-7
Recommended Resources
