 |
| Photo Credit. |
What Is an Error?
An error is essentially something that is stated incorrectly, or a statement that exists which is in direct contradiction to a known fact. However, apparent errors in grammar or spelling do nothing to erode scriptures reliability, for grammar and spelling are simply human conventions, things that humans have come up with, and which are subject to change over the course of time.
Also, phenomenological language and figures of speech do not constitute errors in scripture. All languages have examples of figures of speech and phenomenological language, and there is no reason that they could not be included in the scriptures as well.
For instance, in Joshua 10:13, it states that “the sun stood still.” Now, does that really mean that the sun stood still? Well, it cannot have, as we know for a fact that the earth is constantly rotating, creating the illusion of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. A more accurate assessment would have been “the earth ceased to rotate on its axis,” or something of that nature.
So then, what about these so-called errors? Some people hold the opinion that Exodus 33:20 and Exodus 33:11 contradict each other by saying that on the one hand, no one can see God and live, and on the other that God talked with Moses face to face. In actual fact, “face to face” simply is a phrase that is intended to show that they were talking personally, and that Moses could see some of God’s glory, but not actually God himself. Some people claim that there are contradictions in the Mosaic Law, while most of those examples have to do with what the Israelites were to do in the wilderness compared with how they were to act in the promised land.
Inerrancy
However, I firmly believe that scripture is inerrant. “Inerrant,” as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, means “incapable of erring, infallible” or “containing no errors.” The implications of this is that God gave the whole Bible to us through the people who wrote it down (2 Peter 1:20-21). The Bible was “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), and as such, it is without error in any of the assertions that it makes in the original documents. They have “adequately and accurately” written everything that God’s Holy Spirit gave them to write. By adequately and accurately, I mean to say that they did not mess anything up, and that it was recorded with the correct language in order to be “…everything we need for life and godliness…” (2 Peter 1:3).
Errors have come down through the process of copying and translation, and some things have gone missing. However, I believe, and I think it is supported by scripture (see above), that in the original documents, the Bible was inerrant. This idea of inerrancy is basically a logical conclusion based on God’s character, and what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture. In 1st John 5:20, it states that God is true, and this truth must extend to his words laid down in the Bible, as it says in Titus 1:2 “…God, who does not lie….” Furthermore, in John 17:17, it explicitly states that “…your word is truth.” While it may not be entirely legitimate to argue the case of the Bible’s inerrancy from the Scriptures themselves, one must also at the same time realize the implications of a Holy Bible with major errors in it.
There are several differing opinions concerning inerrancy:
1. Some people hold absolute inerrancy, which essentially says that even the smallest minutia contained within the original text was true.
2. The full inerrancy view states that the Bible is completely true, but that it is not specifically written with scientific and historical data in mind, but that when it makes assertions about those topics, those assertions are true.
3. Limited inerrancy states that the biblical writers were correct on all matters pertaining explicitly to faith, but that they were limited in regards to anything else, including historical events and scientific data.
4. And the most loose view of all, is that of inerrancy of purpose. It puts forth the opinion that the Bible is inerrant in its purpose to bring people to a saving knowledge in Jesus Christ, but that beyond this, it is more or less worthless.
As I see it, the third and fourth views on inerrancy are entirely wrong, and holding such opinions could be dangerous indeed. I believe that I fall somewhere in between the views of absolute and full inerrancy, as I believe that God would not let simple mathematical mistakes, for instance, be recorded in the scriptures needlessly. However, I would be leery of the assertion that the Bible can verify and make sense of all of the minutia that it contains. While it is possible that all of the minutia is correct, we may not have been provided with all the knowledge that we need at this time in history to determine how it is, in fact, proved correct.
Your Turn: What is your view of inerrancy?
Part 2: The Old Testament: Transmission and Canon
Your Turn: What is your view of inerrancy?
Part 2: The Old Testament: Transmission and Canon
Works Cited
- The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Dr. Paul D. Wegner
- Lecture at Big Sky Bible Institute by Dr. Paul D. Wegner
Interesting. Thank you. My opinion is that the bible is generally correct in everything. I have noticed in most biblical passages there is more than one interpretation---there is literal, spiritual, etc. I think it is up to the reader to fathom the deeper, more meaningful meanings of scripture.
For example, Jesus heavily used parables to make His points. If the listener heard only the story and did not ponder the much deeper spiritual meaning, he would think to himself, "Well, that's an interesting story", and get nothing more out of it.
The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is another one that can be studied from different perspectives. In fact, virtually all of the bible requires spiritual discernment. Those who want to argue the historical or physical merits of biblical content are missing the entire point of scripture.
Great post! Lots to think about.
Hmm, interesting that you say "generally correct in everything." Do you think there are times when scripture is incorrect?
As for the story of creation, that's often a tough one. How much of that is literal? Is it 7 literal days, or 7 creative periods? The Hebrew seems to actually lean further towards 7 periods. Hmmm.... maybe there are some answers we'll never know until we get to heaven! ;)
Hi Greg, You may enjoy this explanation of the Joshua 10:13 passage.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wIA3tH9HqY4C&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=Joshua+10:13+john+walton&source=bl&ots=OVO1qNku2o&sig=AoWgJyvUEIeGeYJTzcZOusQbO8M&hl=en&ei=M1Y_TeHuFoH-8AbTpLnbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_sunstoodstill.htm
It shows that many things that we assume are an errors in the bible, may actually be misinterpretations of the customs and language of the author. The Bible is a revelation of God to his people. Scripture was written BY God THROUGH the author TO a specific audience (Post-exodus Israel, The nation of Israel, Christians ect.) FOR all humanity. The key in Biblical Exegesis is reading the text with all of those influences in mind, in order to find the purpose (meaning/lesson) behind the text. It is this meaning that we apply to our live. And when we just take the words without first filtering them and understanding the language, we get theses Supposed errors.
Hey Bryce, excellent comment! And thank you for those links, I had never heard that information before! That makes a great deal of sense... although in the first link I was having a little trouble determining exactly what was supposed to happen when the sun "stood still," but I get the point that it was a commonly used phrase to describe a visible phenomenon.
Also, thanks for the quick hermeneutics break down. We need to get you to write some posts...
Excellent comments Bryce and spot on. We need to remember context and we cannot rip verses out without understanding the larger framework and setting. I wanted to add that since it is God's word, we should be very cautious when thinking that there is a contradiction or error. God cannot contradict himself so instead of questioning the author, we should turn to question to ourselves and ask 'what are we missing here'?
As Greg Koukl (str.org) reminds us, the Bible is not to be taken literally, it is meant to be taken as intended. The Bible uses different forms of writing and that is all a part of what Bryce alluded to earlier.
God Bless
Alan
"meant to be taken as intended." Awesome stuff Alan! STR.org has got some excellent articles!
Sometimes just figuring out what type of writing said passage is intended to be can be difficult, though. In my hermeneutics class back at BSBI, my prof disagreed with the textbook he chose to teach out of as to what type of literature the book of Revelations is supposed to be. Tough stuff.