Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that
the biblical Scripture in the original manuscripts is accurate and totally free
of error. Biblical infallibility is the
doctrinal position that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and
Christian practice is wholly useful and true. In other words, 'Inerrant' means
there are no errors; 'Infallible' means there can be no errors.
The Christian
Church as a whole believes that the Bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant.
The words Infallibility and Inerrancy may be distinguished but not
separated. The Bible is inerrant since it makes no false or misleading
statements on any topic whatsoever and it is infallible since it makes no false
or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice. God himself has
guided the personality and style of the sacred authors to communicate the
message he desired. It is important to bear in mind that belief in inerrancy is
in keeping with the character of God. If God is true and He is (Romans 3:4), and
if God breathed out the Scripture, then the Scripture, being the product of
God, must also be true.
It is to be noted
that this divine inspiration and inerrancy is only applicable to the original
writings, not the copies and translations made by man. When critics of the
Bible point out apparent contradictions, what they are doing is either failing
to understand the context of the passages they are examining, or they have
encountered a scribal copying error. Even the copies of the scriptural
documents are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5%
textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than
spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the,"
"but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of
the 1.5%. Nevertheless, nothing affects doctrinal truths. In fact, nothing in
ancient history even comes close to the accuracy of the biblical documents. The
rationalists gives much importance to show Bible has errors, since that will
eventually question the reliability of God Himself and the integrity of
Christian fundamentals.
Scriptural
inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include
the historical accuracy of the Bible, the Bible's claims of its own inerrancy,
Church history and tradition and one’s individual experience with God. Since
the doctrine of Bible Inerrancy is
very much needed to assert the belief in biblical authority, every believer
should understand and defend this doctrine.
Dimensions of Bible Inerrancy
Many of the
so-called errors in the Bible, that those who oppose inerrancy point out, are
easily eliminated because they fall into various categories that the doctrine of
inerrancy allows for. In addition to this, since definitions of inerrancy are
not plentiful, Errantists equate inerrancy with infallibility and then limit
its scope to matters of faith and practice or to revelation matters or to the
message of salvation. In view of this, when defining inerrancy, it is always
important to state clearly what it means and what it does not mean. The
fundamental issues that mesh with the concept of inerrancy can be summarized as
follows:
1. Inerrancy extents its scope to the whole
of Bible.
It is
very interesting that many have, in very subtle ways, retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant
in speaking about the Bible while denying its freedom from error. It is said by
advocates of this position that it need not be a concern to the Christian that
the Bible contains historical, scientific, and factual errors because the
purpose of the Bible is to merely instruct the believer in the life they should
live. For example, Stephan T Davis in his book "The Debate about the Bible" claims that "The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but
not inerrant. That is, there are historical and scientific errors in the Bible,
but I have found none on matters of faith and practice".
This
scoping is absolutely wrong. Wayne Grudem
defines biblical inerrancy in the following way: "The inerrancy of Scripture means
that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is
contrary to fact." This definition implies that whatever the Bible
talks about can be trusted to be true and accurate, whether it is a matter of
doctrine, ethics, history or science. For
example, by the divine intervention in history, God initiated His plan for
redemption of mankind from sin and realized it through specific historical
events. The chain of historical events in Israel and the
spiritual realities in the incarnation of Jesus of the salvation of man are so
intertwined that if one is true other is true too. It is not logical to claim
that doctrines depending on the historical events are inerrant but these events
may be myth. Furthermore, in
geographical realm, the archeological evidences and understanding of antiquity
attests to the exactitude of the scriptures.
Though
bible does not claim to be the manual of science or history, the facts
mentioned in it never errs.
2.
Inerrancy allows
for variety in details
Inerrancy
does NOT mean uniformity in all the minute details of a particular event in
analogous accounts written by different authors. Such differences seen in the
Holy Bible have been greatly exaggerated by radicals and often referred to as
contradictions or errors. In fact, different authors are free to decide the
level of details in their narration. All that matters is whether the details
contradict in the core substance of the event. This is true in the cases of
event reporting, quotation or a specification in doctrines.
a.
Complementary
details in the narration.
If
four witnesses to a crime gave testimony that was word-by-word, syllable-by-syllable
the same, a judge or jury will certainly conclude that the testimony is framed
and fabricated. This explains the freedom of details observed in the 4 Gospels for
reporting conversations and events. In regard to the Jesus’ quotes, it is to be
noted that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers of Scripture wrote their
accounts in Greek and hence had to translate the original words into Greek. Writers
might have used slightly different words to describe the same incident or
quote, yet everyone gave the same meaning, albeit with different words. Another
reason for the differences is the different standpoints/outlooks the writers
had for the same event. Each author records what is important to himself as a
historian emphasizing different points. These accounts are complementary, not
contradictory.
For
instance, in the Gospels of Matthew (Ch. 28) and Mark (Ch. 16) one angel is
said to appear at the empty tomb of Christ and proclaim the good news that
Jesus has risen from the dead. But in the Gospel of Luke (Ch. 24) the writer
says that there are two angels at the tomb. These differences do not contradict
each other. Though 2 angels appeared, only one spoke to the disciples. This can be illustrated with the following
story: Suppose I met President of India and his adviser. I then meet you and tell
you that I met the President. Later I meet your friend and tell him of the
meeting, but this time mention that it was both the president 'and' his adviser
whom I had met. You and your friend meet and talk about how privileged I am to
meet the President. However, when you compare notes you discover that I have
told you that I "only" met the president, whereas I tell your friend
that I met the president 'and' his adviser. There is an 'apparent'
contradiction, but not an irreconcilable one. The same is true for the Gospel
accounts of the angels.
b.
Non verbatim
repetition of event or quotation.
In
his book, "Thy Word Is Truth" E. J. Young noted that, “In times of
antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time
something was written out”. A verbatim repetition of an event or quote was not
always possible due to the need for translation. While Jesus’ quotes had to be
translated from Aramaic to Greek, the Old Testament records had to be
translated from Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Furthermore, Old Testament scrolls were so lengthy that it was very
difficult to unroll it every time a reference is needed. The fact that these
scrolls were not readily and easily available for any writer made the non
verbatim repetition further necessary. Hence Inerrancy allows for quotations to be paraphrases rather than word
by word translation.
Some
ancient writers took the liberty of non verbatim quotation to the extent of
combining the words of two Old Testament prophets. In Matthew 27:9-10, though
the author ascribes the prophecy to Jeremiah, on closer look, it can be
understood that it is a combination of Zechariah 11:12-13, Jeremiah 18:2 and
Jeremiah 19:2-11. Opponents of inerrancy argue that Matthew got it wrong by
mentioning Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. However, in reality, what Matthew
does is a comparison with some parts of the prophecy by Jeremiah. This is understood
by the fact that although Matthew makes reference to 'a field', no reference is
made to this by Zechariah. On the contrary, in Jeremiah 18:2 and 19:2-11 there
are clear references to a field. Since Jeremiah is the "major"
prophet, and Zechariah is a minor, the major prophet's name is used here. Mark also does the same by mentioning Isaiah
not Malachi in Mark 1:2-3.
c.
Non Contradiction
on the subject matter.
Inerrancy demands the
account does not teach error or contradiction. In Bible, we can learn that all
the statements reflect as they are despite the variance in the details. For instance,
in Matthew 8:5-13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, “I am
not qualified.” In Luke 7:1-10, it is noted that the elders came and said
concerning the centurion, “He is worthy.” It seems that the elders first came
and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself came. Both accounts are in
accord with things as they are.
It is a
psychological fact that, due to inevitable differences in points of view,
observation and individual emphasis, several individuals, each completely
honest, will tell the very same events in quite different ways and words.
3.
Inerrancy allows
for variety in writing styles
Inerrancy
allows each biblical author to use his own unique style in terms of vocabulary,
grammar, and method of presentation. It also accounts for the behavior of the
writings. For instance, Paul wrote his books with a lot of emotion and reflects
logic of a philosopher while Matthew gets straight to the point.
a.
Ordinary language
in everyday speech.
The ways
approximations are used in numbers are not usually considered for accuracy. For
instance, in a battle, while the death toll is 7946 or 8124, a reporter can
report it as 8000. This will not be an error or contradiction when it is
considered as rounding off. The gospel of John was written in the simple style
one might expect of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more
sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person. It is in line with the form of
everyday speech that sun is considered as “rising” in Ecclesiastes 1:5
b.
Pictorial
language and Symbolic statements
The
doctrine of Inerrancy allows for
departure from standard forms of grammar. Hence Inerrancy
does not exclude the use of pictorial language and figures of speech.
For
instance, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, “I am the door,” whereas in verse 11 He
states, “I am the Good Shepherd.” In English language this is considered mixing
metaphors, but for Greek grammar or Hebrew language this is not an issue.
Similarly, In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit as no gender (pneuma = neuter) and then refers to the
Spirit as “He” (ekeinos = masculine).
This may raise an English grammarian’s eyebrows, but it is not a problem of
Greek grammar. The context will help to determine whether the interpretation is
literal, spiritual or symbolical.
Interpreting
the Bible literally does not rule out figurative language when the context
calls for it. The Bible uses literary devices such as metaphor, simile, and
hyperbole to make a point. Inerrancy does not mean that passages need to be
interpreted in a "hyper-literal" manner. It is to be noted that many
things in Psalms, the Song of Solomon and the Prophets, as well as the parables
in the gospels and in Revelation are figurative. Besides, thousand of expressions
in both the Old and New Testaments are closer to poetry then a prose.
4.
Inerrancy does
not demand scientific precision
The
opponents of the inerrancy theory often argue that some historical statements
in the Bible vary with other facts. Inerrant assumes the truth of a statement,
even if it is not of absolute scientific precision since the writer and the
readers understand that exact precision was not intended. Rounding off numbers or approximation of
years may be considered as inerrant since the context is given importance
rather than the numbers. For instance,
In Joshua 4:9, it’s mentioned that the 12 stones set up in Jordan “are there unto
this day”. “This day” obviously means that the day that scripture was written
and not the day the reader reads it.
Placement
of statements in right historical setting
Often
times, the defenders of inerrancy had to take a “wait and see” approach in
justifying certain historic or scientific aspect. Till day, that approach has vindicated
them. For instance, until recently some scholars had believed that the usage of
the word “politarchs” in Acts 17:6 as
the title of the civil authorities in Thessalonica is incorrect, since no
reference to this word could be found in any classical literature. However,
recent discoveries uncovered about 19 inscriptions which use this term and
interestingly 5 of them are mentioned specific to Thessalonica.
Another
instance is Christ’s reference to mustard seed as the smallest of the seeds in
Matthew 13: 31-32. Today orchid seed, not mustard seed is known as the smallest
of the seeds. Jesus’ purpose was not to be a scientific discoverer, but to
teach the common man about the kingdom of God in a language
and science known to him. Hence this reference is not seen as an error.
Biblical
chronologies have always been under attack by radicals. However, the fact the
critics do not know or consider is that in ancient days, there was no universal
calendar. The duration of reigns of the kings were often calculated and
recorded based on different calendars. Very technical work following the
ancient ways of calculation, has been done in the latter part of 20th
century to prove that biblical chronologies are accurate than any other ancient
writers.
Placing
the biblical statements in the right historical context will solve the
questions arising on the differences in the usage of some grammar and writing style
as well.
5.
Inerrancy allows
for non-technical descriptions
The
usage of exact technical vocabulary that conforms to the modern day science is
not implied by the doctrine of inerrancy. It is reasonable to expect a biblical
author to explain a natural event from the view point of a common man in pure
non-technical descriptions. For instance, in Numbers 11:9, it says dew fell on
the camp. Scientifically dew is “Tiny
drops of water that form on cool surfaces at night, when atmospheric vapor
condenses.” However, from the vantage point of an observer, manna looked
like falling with small droplets of water. Here it is to be noted that the
author is not mentioning scientific statement on the nature of universe. This
is true in the case of Ecclesiastes 1:5 also, where it is mentioned sun to
‘rise’. It is not logical to expect Genesis 24:63 to read, “When the revolution of the earth upon its
axis caused the rays of the solar luminary to impinge horizontally upon the
retina, Isaac went out to meditate.”
The
biblical record of creation touches upon areas of geology, astronomy, biology,
meteorology, zoology, physiology and several others, without mentioning the
exact technical expressions. Still, they are error free in regard to
fundamental principles.
6.
Inerrancy allows
for problem passage to exist
The
main subject matter of the Bible is the salvation of human kind from sin. Bible
is not intended to give the perfect solutions of all historical and scientific
questions. Since the aim of bible records is not to provide total information
on every subject, the doctrine of inerrancy allows for the existence of
passages which are not comprehensive or complete. In some cases, the answers
may be formulated only by further development in archeology and science. While
waiting for the answers it makes sense to consider it as inerrant, rather than
referring to error.
Inerrancy does not demand omniscience of
authors
It is
not reasonable to demand the authors of biblical records to be omniscient or
scholars in all subjects. Every book in the Bible revolves around a central
subject and that context is given importance rather than the comprehensiveness
of all matters written in it. For instance, each of the 4 gospels has its own
distinctive role in portraying the life of Jesus. None of them is intended to
be day-to-day biography of Jesus Christ. John specifically mentions in his
gospel that the comprehensive record of Jesus’ life and ministry is not humanly
possible and it is not his intention. The events which help a person to accept Jesus
as his personal savior got recorded in different contexts by different authors.
(To be continued...)
Your Brother In Christ,
Finny Samuel
References:
Reliability Of The Canon by Dr. Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Saneesh Cherian
http://freecourses.org
http://apologeticscourses.com
http://bible.org
http://www.drbarrick.org
http://en.wikipedia.org
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk
http://www.blueletterbible.org
No comments:
Post a Comment